Looking for rx6800 for frame generation. price was horrible get displayport to vga to give old crt a try. 85 hz crt is far superior to 165 hz. It seem like we scammed to get highend gpu for higest framerate and resolution now when we do not actually need them. I need to looking for 120 hz crt moniter asap before some recycle guy smash them for copper. The biggest elephant in the room that they never told is maximum pixel respond time because lcd is keep fading image to the next frame the higher contrast longer it take and for my 165 hz it have frigging 36 millisecond to completely change to next frame!!!! this could turn game with fast high contrast moving object like shump to image ghosting nightmare. while crt write complete new frame on next frame. but if we disable vsync crt just display current frame instantly trade with tearing which could ruin motion fluidlity. The real downside is screen size which may make thing lot harder to read when play with modern game which ui is way much smaller than before.
Is it not the case that CRT monitors are a more energy-efficient solution? Let me explain my reasoning. Yes, CRTs consume more power than LCDs, but they also excel in detail at lower resolutions. The image on a CRT monitor, even at 1600x1200, will look crystal clear and subjectively as good as or better than 4K on an LCD. This means you can run videos or games at lower resolutions, allowing the computer to consume less electricity. The graphics card will either be less powerful and more energy-efficient (as will the processor), or it will consume less due to lower workload, thereby offsetting the higher power consumption of the monitor. Am I wrong?
No meme. I only discovered the lack motion blur by accident while playing Sonic 1 on my Sega Mega Drive that happened to be plugged into a CRT TV I had since 2007.
Regarding anti-aliasing: Lack thereof isn't _that_ much of an issue in old games, but many games from the last 10 years or so require it, because there's so much fine detail going on, that only temporal anti-aliasing can get rid of. (With the side effect of introducing noticeable image blur, especially at lower resolutions ...) Rise of the Tomb Raider was the first game where I really noticed that. Even at 4k and with "classic" AA solutions (initially, it did not ship with temporal AA; DLSS was added later), you couldn't get rid of the flickering.
100% agree. I'm actually working on a video that goes into detail of all the different methods of AA, both old and new. Discusses benefits and disadvantages of each method. Not sure when the video will be done.
The Olden Domain is amazing. The best map from OSP for sure. What are those weapons and slash skins you are using? Haven’t seen them on ModDB. If they are custom, could you share the pk3’s?
@@GTXDash would be great! I also saw "family friendly" version of q3 in one of your earlier videos. Haven't seen anything like that before. Would be amazing if you could share those one day.
I swear. Between the vinyl nazis and this clown, they are going to have you rubes eventually living in the Dark Ages! You couldn't pay me enough to back to shitty vinyl records, fluorescent lights or, especially, shitty CRT monitors.
Does that mean someone would have to make monitors or TVs that have a flicker based on the screen literally turning off for a millisecond?? seems more eficient that the black frame thing because the blur will still be there even if its all black because the monitor isnt stopping image output entirely, like the CRT did with their flickering flaw.
No. The endgame screen is a 1000hz OLED. And before you start your BS about we can not run that fast, it is to heavy for my weak hardware. We are going to use interpolation to get the motion resolution benefits. If you don't like it you don't have to use it. But this is where the industry is going. If you don't believe me, just wait and watch what happens. This has been in the works for a long time.
The industry has been saying that we'll reach those high framerates for over 15 years. OK, so it's going to happen. But it's not happening now. How long til it finally happens?
@@GTXDash TCL revealed a 1000 Hz panel not to long ago. But it is not an OLED, it is probably an VA LCD panel. But it shows the progression. And there is industry rumors that 1000 hz OLED panels will coming out in the 2026-2027 timeframe already. As I said in another comment you probably saw, LG have already released a 480 hz OLED monitor model. The main thing and the biggest question mark for me still though is. When will they release a new HDMI standard bandwidth upgrade. The new HDMI 2.1b is not enough to drive these future even higher hz panels from our own sources. And display ports 2.1 never comes to TV screens. And with that ridiculous 1 meter cable length on the 80gbps version. It is not a pleasant option anyway. But there could be expensive optic cables avaliable when we need them though.
Framerate doesn't mean shit when you neither have the hardware to keep up with it nor enough brightness to make black frame insertion on low framerates effective or comparable to a CRT. Anything slower than said 500/1000 fps will cause double/triple/etc.-image ghosting and would be essentially the same as regular sample-and-hold displays. Any flat panel not being bright enough for 1 millisecond (basically any modern flat panel lol) will have absolutely shit brightness and will be nigh-unusable. The only display tech that looks promising in this regard is LPD, but it just uses UV lasers instead of cathode rays to shoot at phosphors.
@@netimmerse Well duhu....of course if you don't have hardware to drive the panel it will look worse than if you do. LOL. It is very easy for them to make the inbuilt hardware that take care of the interpolation or BFI. They just have to scale up what they already do. And interpolation or BFI can be run from your PC just fine if you have the hardware for it. Don't worry dude, as I said you don't have to use it if you don't want to. It will still be available soon enough for us who want to have excellent motion resolution. And they should be able to for example drive the OLED elements harder if they are turned off some of the frames, without making it wear our much worse. It is heat that is the killer and that is burning in the subpixels. For me less light out put is no problem, I use my screen in a light controlled room. And even a several year old OLED panel ls way way brighter than what I need on max OLED light setting. And the last are over twice brighter than what I have. And in a few years I am sure they will make them a good bit brighter still. Meaning they have brightness to spare if you want to trade some of that for better motion resolution. Instead if max HDR nits out put.
@cajampa Nobody is saying CRTs replaces modern displays. CRTs are for fast-paced, reflex sensitive games. A game like Red Dead 2 doesn't need a CRT. An LCD or OLED is fine for sluggish, cinimatic titles. I cant ignore the hundreds of 4090 benchmarks in AAA games that can't even get a 1% load to cross 200fps, even with FSR or DLSS. How's 1000hz gonna fix that?
Resolution means nothing. Why ? Because for example a VA monitor with same resolution and same size may look worse than an IPS with same resolution and same size, especially for text clarity. So a 1080p 27 inch IPS may look sharper and more detailed than a 1440p 27 inch VA. Refresh rate means nothing. Why ? Because 144hz on VA monitor with 16ms response time is not the same as 144hz on OLED with 0.03ms response time. Both are 144hz but OLED is cleary much better. So don't choose 144hz just because it has 144hz in the specs. A 144hz VA monitor cannot display 144 frames independent of each other, so no idea why they market them as 144hz monitors.
Which VA panel are you talking about? There are good VA panels now and their contrast ratio is leaps and bounds ahead of IPS, and I've never seen one that looks less sharp/detailed in 1440p than an IPS at 1080 and the display lottery isn't as bad (no IPS glow).
I used a 17" CRT monitor next to a 22" LCD a few months back. The CRT would often develop a painful high pitched squeel. The CRT was dimmer & took a few seconds to reach peak brightness. The CRT's text was blurry. The CRT's image needed tweeking a bunch of settings to be mostly square and centered--and changing the resolution meant all those settings went wonky. I didn't really care about the weight and bulk when I later replaced the CRT with another LED monitor.
@@GTXDash From the high pitched whining and constant flicker, yes. To be fair, I haven't tried one north of 72 hz, but even if the flicker isn't noticeably visible, it absolutely can affect people. Even certain lighting fixtures can be very problematic, but for reasons you explained very well in this video, that's less of a concern than scanline flicker. When flat panels starting becoming popular, it was a huge blessing for me. I could finally be in a room with a screen for as long as I wanted, and supplemental lighting in the room was no longer required. I think CRTs caused a lot of vague and inexplicable discomfort for many people, though if someone says they're not affected, I do believe them.
11:05 PAL 50hz televisions are notorious for their noticeable flicker even on consumer TVs with relatively slow decaying phosphors (which, however, were good enough to display 60hz content without flicker). This was also the reason why 100hz european televisions with digital preprocessing were made (which is an absolute bummer and also the reason for HDTV CRT televisions being primarily in NTSC countries). This is an additional issue: the slower the phosphor decay is, the less noticeable the flicker on lower refresh rates is, and the more noticeable are blur trails on high contrast moving content (mouse pointer on a black background, for example) still much more bearable than any sample-and-hold LCD tho
I am quite a young person so I havent had much exposure to crt monitors but when I did see one I could very much see the flicker to the point where any improvements in motion blur got outweighed by eye pain and the characteristic squeel of a crt. But I understand most people aren't as sensitive to flicker.
I used crts from 5years old until 22 years old, then lcds until 42 years old then back to crt. I can't stand the normal refresh rates that I used to use when I was younger, anything under 90hz is too slow and I can see the screen flicker, but the screens (glass and electron beam) were all made by the same 2-3 companies using the 1280x1024@66hz and 1024x768@75hz, the "consumer grade" 17" crt standard. Nearly nobody had a 1600x1200 crt. I now use a custom widescreen resolution on a 4:3 crt, obtaining the benefits of a 95hz @ 1180x680 or 105/110hz @ 1000x600 and wish to purchase one of those sony 24" widescreen crts.
@@GTXDash I'll keep it as my second then. xD But yeah I get you, haven seen one in person for god knows how many years. I loved playing san andreas on PS2 and it looked great on crt.
The thing is, many of us did notice it. But because of marketing, the convenience of a display that wasn't the size of a microwave oven, and the prospect of the technology improving way beyond the capabilities of "the now obsolete old tube tech" made us believe we were getting something better, which in many ways, we did. flat panel displays have outdone CRTs in almost everyway possible ...almost. However, display manufactures are indeed still working on the problem. But, because it has been so long since people have even laid eyes on a CRT, almost nobody remembers what a CRT looks like anymore. So most people don't have that perspective to do a proper comparison. But also, most people didn't play video games. Movies are at 24fps as are many tv shows. 24fps is marginally better in terms of motion clarity on a CRT than LCD, but it's very subtle, so gaming truly is the only reason to keep using a CRT, especially when it comes to retro games. I'm not saying we should go back to CRTs permanently, we have made way more progress with LCDs and OLEDs. But in the meantime, CRTs will still have a spot on my desk until a display manufacture makes a breakthrough in completely eliminating motion blur. Man. That was a long comment. Probably should do a video about this 😄
We did! The early flat screens were NOTORIOUS for having a lag. In the beginning it was so bad your freaking mouse cursor would leave an observable white trail. We were waiting on them to get _marginally_ usable only because of weight. A big CRT monitor weights 25 kilos, a large TV would weight twice. Also no problem with image geometry as a bonus. But lag was always there.
@@varvarvarvarvarvar Power consumption was a problem too. My Dell Ultrascan from 1999 chugs down 170-210w of power. I've got a portable 120hz 1440p monitor that runs on 20w of power.
Great video! I just honestly wouldn't downplay how great BFI modes are in a select few recent oled tvs, especially the LG CX/C1 and a few PC monitors tuned by Blurbuster. They can absolutely reach or surpass CRT's motion clarity. an LGC1 at 120hz with BFI maxed is incredible for videogames! It took basically 2 decades but we're getting there, finally.
Console devs can't even reach 60fps even with upscaling tech. They just push the graphics and forgo optimization instead. It's never gonna be the norm. 60fps is barely the norm even now. And again it doesn't fix the issue. 120hz without BFI is more blurry than 60hz with strobing/BFI/CRT
You have to take individual differences into account. I couldn't use 60 Hz CRT monitor at all. I had to get to at least 72Hz to not be aggravated by flicker. I didn't have much issue with CRT TVs though, but I suspect they used Long Persistence Phosphor to lower flicker. But multi-sync monitors I suspect used shorter persistence phosphors to handle higher refresh, but that made flicker more apparent. Also there are good backlight strobing LCD now...
OLED's geting close enough to the point its hard to even see motion blur \ ghosting. "1ms" high refresh rate TN panels suck balls by comparison and they used to be king for LCD ghostless gaming, but their nothing compared to the current top gaming oleds. It just took nearly 30 years to get LCD tech to be good enough to equal a CRT. I personally don't care about going back. And I am one that lived through the CRT era. My Last CRT was NEC could do insane refresh rates up to 1024x768 , and could do max VGA spec at 2048x1536 @ 60hz not that that mattered since many vcards din't have enough vram or their ramdacs at that time struggled to go that high with out looking like crap. I have zero desire to go back to that era I have no nostilga for scanlines. Old CRT's also blur as they get older from constant use assuming you don't have other issues like purple tinted screens as the caps fail.
Regarding blurring issue. You can actually tune them to be perfectly crispy again. They have adjusting screws/knobs, accessible when you remove the case, which allow physical tuning well beyond what's achievable through menus. I picked up multiple CRTs that were written off as "blurry", tuned them up and used/sold them. Never even encountered one that was blurry beyond saving tbh.
Great video! I wish I had good CRTs back when they were the thing, or even now.. And finding a good enough one on the used market (especially if you are in the developing world) is almost impossible today - it's as if they all vanished. Which is weird because one would expect the developing world to hold on to those for longer than the developed world. Pretty sure the millions of CRTs didn't just vanish though - and most should be working today, even if dimmer because of aging of the phosphors. They were well built and arguably with robust components and longer lifetime than LCDs. So, did they just end up in the landfill or go to the recyclers to salvage precious metals, etc? I do have a crappy 14" CRT monitor which still has a place on my desk (use it to extend desktop for extra apps or sth if needed) - the colors are all off now, wasn't from a well known brand then. And we do still have our older Sony 14" Trinitron TV from the late 80s/early 90s and an LG 21" Flatron from the 2000s, just waiting for an ideal space or a use case like retro gaming, etc, if I ever get to it. Or the trash to come pick it up, if I don't within a reasonable frame of time. Hate seeing older working tech go to waste but being unable to do anything about it.
This is all true but I never found motion blur to be that big of a deal, especially for PC. The scenario where you require the best motion clarity is when you're trying to aim and track some kind of a target right? But if you're moving your view in software to track it, that target no longer has motion blur. You only get motion blur if you have your view stay still with the target moving across, but then that doesn't matter too much because even in a real life scene of the same setup you will see motion blur. A high end OLED is more than close enough to a CRT look that if you can afford one, it makes no sense to run an actual CRT. If you have enough refresh rate you can run BFI, and if you have enough resolution, you can better approximate lower resolutions. With 240hz OLED you can flash the screen 4 times per 60hz frame, that's basically no motion blur right there. And with 4k native resolution your 720p or 480p image can look any way you want with the right shaders.
I agree with everything but refresh rate with low fps. There is actually no connection between both. There is definitely a big noticeble difference between 60hz and 144hz at locked 30fps in game. So the main rule for the refresh rate - higher is always better, despite the fps. After about 20 years fast OLEDs are finally coming, so people would be able to see and feel how it was on CRTs back in the days in case of motion blur. My fav preferences were 800x600x120hz in the beginning of 2000s.
@@GTXDash today we pay good money for the best monitors for competitive gaming, like Beng XL2566K TN 360hz when imo a crt with 120hz was way cheaper and the feeling... buttery smooth
You barely bring up Black Frame Insertion and dismiss it immediately. I find that very unfair, a 360hz display inserting a black frame between each frame means a game only has to run at 180 FPS, which when you consider frame generation from DLSS and FSR3, then becomes like only 90-100 frames of "real performance", certainly doable for modern cards. You lose a ton of brightness with BFI, but if the display has nits to spare, it's more than worth it. BFI works, especially on OLED. You should try it when you can on a 240hz or higher panel.
I dismiss it immediately? I explain what it is and how it works, and would end it by saying that this is probably the best way to overcome motion blur in modern displays. It's just that the technology is not quite there yet. If you want me to mention the things that you posted. I'd just be wasting people's time, because this info you posted are just facets of one way of reducing motion blur, which is not what this video is about. It is about how to completely remove motion blur, not just reduce it by half.
Can I be honest? I love crt image but the buzzing sound is absolutely unbearable. As a kid i felt when someone turned on a crt tv from several meters away from me, almost everytime one of my neighbors turned on the tv id feel it in my skin. Even when someone films a crt and uploads on youtube, the screeching sound still hurts me. If it wasnt for that id love to own a big crt
12:31 then you didn't unplug and discharge it, it's like using anything else, be stupid and you will get hurt. Weight is pretty irrelevant considering it's a stationary object. They are still a useful technology and it would be interesting to see what modern materials and manufacturing could do with it.
I've used a CRT before, it was awful; the weight and space needed to house never made sense compared to even a low end flat panel from the early 2000's- not to mention that awful hissing sound and terrible resolution. I'm sorry, but no matter how you discuss it but your opinion that 50hz looks better on a CRT than 144hz on an IPS LCD is demonstratively wrong. This is not subjective: talk about scan lines and the physique of the human ever all you want but no matter how you cope- you are still getting more recent, frequent frames on any LCD than a CRT. Even more so on 144hz. The only reason you have that opinion is because games were designed with the flaws of CRT's in mind like you said. If there were any truth to your claims there would be more demand in the market for them; but look at any modern competitive gaming scene, none of these professionals use CRT's. It's completely okay to confide in obsolete technology, but stop publishing videos like these to mislead people into getting into buying inferior products that have already been proven to emit x-rays.
"have already been proven to emit x-rays." Modern CRTs produce very little x-rays, and it's nowhere near enough to be harmful. Older CRTs from around the 50s or 60s may produce more, however it's a negligible amount.
"If there were any truth to your claims there would be more demand in the market for them" Very, very bold of you to assume people know what's best for them. They just buy what's available, and LCDs are much easier to make so that's what is produced. Most people don't think about what would be better, they pick from what's available and convenient.
Great video 🙂 Honestly, playing Diablo 2 LOD (classic 2d) on a crt will not really give you any motion blur and that game only runs 24 fps, so we don't even need 50Hz Pal games to prove the point. I think the real reason to buy a high refresh rate IPS/VA/OLED monitor is not to get those excessive frame rates because there isn't a big difference between a 144Hz and a 240Hz. Its rather because only the high and highest refresh rate monitors will get rid of the excessive input lag, that is virtually non existent on crt monitor. I own four different IPS panels, an OLED tv and a sweet 17" JVC PVM (crt), and the last one is by far the best for games like Street Fighter. Both because of motion blur even though, I think on most IPS panels it is totally acceptable. But input lag is a whole different story. It just feels like I have so much more time on my CRT to perform those jumping late fierce, fierce, dragon punch combos. I own a really sweet 30 inch Apple Cinema Display, with a 24 ms panel, and even though there is very little perceived blur or ghosting while running games or video, the input lag really kills all my combos.
Is there anyway of accomplishing this without using VGA and instead a component input at 480i? I've seen tons of conflicting information on converters and adapters and what not. Could it be possible to convert from HDMI to VGA, but then convert from VGA to Component? Is VGA to component a less laggy solution than HDMI to Component? Or is a higher priced HDMI to component convertor necessary for a smooth experience? I ask because I've somewhat recently got a sweet little 13 inch Trinitron from 1989, and I love the way it looks, it would just be cool to see some new stuff on that screen. Thanks!
You can totally do that. However, the device has to be able to convert 60hz to 59.94hz. And a less than ideal device would just lead to tearing. But, experiment and see if it works out for you. Just make sure to have an LCD plugged in because navigating a modern OS at 480i is an awful experience.
Looking in my country the cheapest working CRT on sale is €1600 and then one for 2200 and one for 3600! And they aren’t even that special. I can buy a new 4090 PC and a decent monitor for that price and get warranty 😂
When I switched from CRT to LCD back in the day the lack of flicker on the LCD was the main benefit. Even at 120hz a CRT flickers more than LCD at 60hz. You claim 48hz is enough not to see flicker but 50hz TVs that we have here flicker a lot to me. Playing at 60 in games that support PAL60 helps but it doesn’t get rid of flicker. So flicker or motion blur? Best would be to have neither. When I game on a CRT monitor I prefer 85hz minimum for my eyes not to hurt.
Didn't really get why Oled can't come close to matching CRT in motion clarity, the near instantaneous pixel response time and black frame insertion would create a very similar effect, at the cost of brightness, whilst having all those other benefits, and a 4k display can drop to 1080p losslessly, just dispay 4 of the same pixel. Yes Oled will never look exactly like CRT but is CRT the end all be all best technology?
The problem is that they aren't doing that. That's exactly the issue. I've been chomping at the bit for OLED with heavier BFI for ages because I'm in a light-controlled environment where I won't mind the brightness lost so much and it just isn't available still.
if you ever want to use these i suggest to get a sunglasses and an eye drop to use every 5 minutes because i remember these was painful to look at for more than 1 hour
