Check out the game I'm working on. Coming later this year. Wishlist on Steam for our game: store.steampowered.com/app/18... Follow me at Discord: / discord
The difficult part isn’t to believe the superiority of crt… the difficult part is to go to a store and buy one. Not to mention find a shop to service an old one. The last shop that I knew that they did it… has been closed for a couple of years.😢
Getting your hands on a working CRT is difficult but the very next video I'm currently working on covers some of the most effective ways of getting a CRT. I didn't mention it in this video because it really was beyond the scale of what I wanted to focus on. But expect a video soon that covers this.
@@GTXDashI don't think it's hard to get a CRT, it's hard to find a high quality CRT. Ideally you'd want something capable of pushing 1080P+ and as of right now you'll pay hundreds to get ahold of one
@@WalnutOWnah we know how to make them. Not as if the over century worth of R&D just up and disappeared. The community behind CRT's would somehow have to convince a company (like Sony or Samsung) it would be worth their time to re-invest in production.
One of my goals it to make a 4k 200hz crt. Would require a ton of curcuit design work but I think its possible. As far as I know, most crt monitors could display higher resolutions, but the circuitry inside driveing the electron gun wasn't designed for the inputs
I am crying right now. My dad used to have a huge ass Sony CRT TV in the basement which he threw out a week ago. Now that I watched this video, I found out that it was the Sony KV-40XBR700 which is one of the Holy Grail's of CRTs.
Damn, man. Sorry to hear that. One of the best for playing retro consoles. I know what it feels like because my dad threw away a ViewSonic desktop CRT like 5 years ago. I feel sick every time I think about it.
Don't be too upset. The KV-40XBR isn't that great. Anything that's not 1080i is scaled and adds quite a bit of lag, and doesn't look that great. Basically all 1080i content is 16:9, and the 40xbr is 4:3. So you essentially are guaranteed to either have lag, or letterboxing. It is by no means at all a holy Grail, and honestly is pretty awful for gaming in general unless you are going deep down the scaler rabbit hole.
Sub pixel light scatter is something no other technology has been able to recreate... there is something so realistic and true to the light that emits from the phosphorous grid... skin looks like skin in a way that has depth, unlike oled or even led. It's like comparing the light of an incandescent light bulb, with an led bulb that runs the light at the same colour... one fills you with warmth (yes, physically also, but... not my point), and the other just feels cold, even though the colour of the light is warm. Incandescent light bulbs emit more light in the spectrum... making it also healthier for us, and... I wonder if light from a cathode ray tube also has that...
You're referring to the natural incandescent nature of CRTs, which is incredible, but you are mistaken on it being exclusive to CRTs, the last few generations of Plasmas exhibited this quality quite strongly, no as much as CRTs, but especially the last two generation of Pioneer Kuro Plasma displays had beautiful incandescence.
Great video mate. I've in the past few years accumulated a few CRTs and I can definitely say a few things as a regular 4k 120hz OLED user as a our main TV. 1. 60hz VGA screens have 100% noticeable flicker, 72-75hz+ does not. I run mine at 85hz. 2. At 85hz i don't suffer any eye strain. 3. Consumer sets at 50hz have no flicker whatsoever. I regularly play games in PAL as that's my local region. No eye strain there either. 4. Sony Trinitron's are over priced or over rated. A PVM isn't worth the money or complexity to maintain and their VGA consumer sets have the damn visible damper wire which i seem to constantly notice. 5. Be prepared to pickup some technical maintenance skills as many of these items are well used and even more are tired. Be sure to test units in person before buying something, especially if you're picky or are paying a large sum for a desirable model. I'm quite curious as to why 50-60hz consumer sets have no flicker and VGA sets do. Do you have an explanation for this? Not sure if you covered it in the video.
It might be that TVs' scanlines linger a little longer than desktop monitors. But there may be another reason that I'm unaware of. Glad you enjoyed the video.
@@GTXDash ahhh yes it could be the phosphors and how long they stay excited or the fact that a 15khz set scans lines slower than anything VGA which typically starts at 31khz minimum
It's because the tv sets are displaying an "interlaced" picture frame instead of a "progressive" picture frame. Those "30" frames per second are actually 60 half-frames per second in usa & canada, "25" frames in Europe are actually 50 half-frames, but during those half-frames only half of the picture is drawn. There is enough content displayed to not notice the flicker. also I think GTXDash might be right about the TVs' scanlines difference of 15khz vs 31khz
I hate that they didn't keep even one factory running...WE GET FREAKING TN PANELS that are basically e-waste, but not CRTs which are basically required hardware for retro gaming and TV
Great video. To my understanding, the reason CRT computer monitors have more visible flicker at 60hz than their television counterparts is due to the choise of phosphors. Shorter persistence phosphors dont leave as long trails, but result in more visible flicker.
I remember when LCD monitors started to become widespread in offices in the early 2000s. Boy were they shitty. Grainy, blurry and un responsive. They only made the beancounters happy, due to less energy consumption (also for the air con) and more real-estate on the desk.
I wonder how awesome crt monitors would be today if they were still in development today. It would be awesome if there were brands that would take up manufacturing crt monitors again and put time into developing thinner and lighter than they used to be would be cool if it was possible.
It's a nice thought, but the fundamental way in which a CRT works means there's a limit to how thin and light you can make one. Keep in mind that the picture is drawn by a particle beam fired from a single emitter at the back of the tube. It's basically the center point of a giant sphere, with the screen being the outside surface of said sphere. The thinner you make it (that is, the smaller the radius of the sphere), the smaller and more curved the screen has to be to get a legible picture. All this has to be done while maintaining a vacuum inside the tube, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of a CRT's weight back in the day already came from needing to use materials strong enough to do that. Could we improve them with the technology we have now? Probably a little, but I imagine part of the reason we stopped developing CRTs is because we were already seeing diminishing returns.
My favourite feature of CRTs was turning them off to make the screen go static, then holding it and touching someone to give them a static shock. That was truly the best feeling. Also I learned that rubbing your hand across a SCART connector gives you a small shock. A lot of my CRT experiences involve electric shocks.
One thing that this video doesn't mention about disadvantages of CRTs is their power comsumption and influence of "environment" on the image quality. I remember from my childhood that CRT in comparison with even early LCDs looked like washed out crap with non-existing black levels and pain-inducing flickering. The reason is that during daylight CRTs were not able to produce bright enough image to win against the power of the sun, so the whole image became a grey mess. It wasn't an issue during the nighttime, but let's be honest as a kid you could not use a PC that late, or even be awaken and most people work during daylight hours. So the issue of crappy image quality was prevalent in circumstances when CRTs were meant to be used.
I think the answer is in gray to gray ghosting. LCD is ghosting because of the time it takes to change a pixel from one color to another. Sometimes the time it take a pixel to change into whatever the next frame requires are longer than the time it takes for yet another frame instruction to arrive.
@@GTXDash What I was thinking, is that there might actually be a much larger delay than a few milliseconds per frame then what we test. For one, a detector might see the time between one moment and when there has been enough change for it to detect as another frame, but the pixels haven't reach the desired color yet. This might not in itself be as big of a problem if the being recreated is only 23.97 fps since the the time between ec frame is so long that it will reach the correct color, but trying to pump 300 fps of fast moving pictures through a LCD panel, one could imagine the picture could get a little slurry. But ultimately by seeing this transition taking place before your eyes instead of only seeing a crisp image stropping, could also add to the blurry effect? CRT pictures don't have the problem of particle filters that physically have to change alignment to block light, it will only have the aspect of the rise and decay of the fluorescent light when it's activated, which I think only translate to overall perceived image brightness? There is also the whole CRTs being additive light and LCDs being subtractive light which add to the magic experience of our beloved CRTs.
@@GTXDash LG C1/G1 are the latest OLEDS that support 120hz BFI; even then, they have a (slightly) lower motion resolution than the CX and GX models. Following models (C2, G2, C3, G3 and etc) have BFI but it does not work in 120hz mode. No other major OLED tv manufacturers have good BFI modes. Aside from some oled BVMs, that's as good as it gets.
@@Heymisterbadguy The retrotink 4K has full-fat hardware accelerated 120Hz & 240Hz BFI with HDR injection, so there is no brightness/luminance loss when using BFI, it is the best BFI algorithm to date, except for Sony's RBFI in their BVM OLED monitors, as you already stated, which is able to get smooth motion @ just 60Hz.
@@Wobble2007 well it's BFI is really really nice but i dont know if it can reach the motion resolution of the C1/G1, which is not just double motion resolution (like the 4k would be since it caps at 240hz) Also, the retrotink in 240hz caps at 1080p
CRT monitors are not bad and they are not ugly. They have personality and they are robust. People say they are fragile but they are not, you just have to be careful not to drop them like you have to be careful not to drop your flat monitors. Honestly I am wondering if I should invest in a nice CRT Monitor because I rarely play any FPS games.
Just get any old 1280x1020 @85 17 or 19 inch of any brand, should be cheap. I have a 1280x1020 Dell M990 from 2000 and it's great. These resolution CRT's are amazing and give you the flexibility of higher def at higher refresh rate top limit while also giving insane refresh rates at lower resolutions. Plus anything bigger than 19inch imo is too big and heavy unless you have the space
They should. Update the technology. Samsung and Sony back in the 2000s were working on new CRT tech that made the tube just a few inches thick. Would've been awesome.
I wish I lived in an alternate reality where SED/FED tech took over LCD in 2005 and then the tiny electron emitters mimicked CRT strobing to lower motion blur.
I remember when we all started to transition to LCDs from CRTs back in the early 2000's. Sure LCD's were new, sleek, and opened up your whole desk, but it was generally accepted that they looked way worse. The biggest issues were the worse black levels and the motion blur. There really wasn't much of a competition though, the heft of a CRT was just untenable. We all just stopped recognizing that CRT's even existed.
So to sum it up, you can push as many new frames to the display as you want but if it's not clearing/blanking the old frames first you've got motion blur.
Exactly. Especially if the blanking is longer than when a frame is visible. BRI is very limited in this regard. This is why backlight strobing is what display manufacturers should continue to improve on.
The best thing about crts is the thing you can't explain to someone who hasn't experienced it: the immersion in content. It's almost like vr when compared to lcd
And you definitely! Cannot explain to people who weren't visually trained to recognize frames at 1/20th of a second. At 0.005 seconds was where I began to notice anti-gravity effects on a broad scale... my goodness - outerspace not having gravity means that light goes both directions so fast that it alters gravity itself... that is what the physics engine realspace2 produced into the world.... the theory became a reality 100%.
The biggest drawback of CRT monitors is IMHO eye strain. I still remember having headaches and sore eyes after spending a late night in front of the PC during CRT days. Having to deal with image geometry and soft corners was also a bit of a pain with CRTs.
I think one of the reasons why crt got replaced very quickly in offices is because lcds have a more clear picture and is less blurry which helps with text.
The bad part is that people like us whom like 0 lag and blur are labeled as picky and fussy. The very first time I used an LED TV I felt the horrible lag. Unfortunately in the past my family forced me to get rid of my CRT monitor because of space, it was an LG Flatron EZ 17" (t730sh), I feel sad about it but thinking over and over will only make me feel worse. I will eventually buy another one. I hope that the industry will still manufacture some CRT Monitors and TVs as retro is slowly growing popular, the problem is that what dictates the trends is the mass and most don't care about purity of gaming experience. Hope never dies, I keep positive.
Yeah when you go back to crt from playing on a flatpanel, plugging in like a Mega Drive into a CRT and pressing jump buttom feels like the character is jumping slightly before you press it. Not a joke it genuinely feels like that. Obviously impossible but its more of a feeling thing, must be something to with your brain being adjusted to lag.
LCD/LED has always been inferior but could you imagine how deep a 100” crt would need to be. I still have a CRT monitor for retro gaming, but you need a deep desk, modern monitors take up so little room.
If manufacturers continued building CRTs, they would've improved on the technology the same that LCDs continued to improve. Samsung (before canceling it) got a 30" CRT to be only a few inches thick. That being said, I think the industry needs to keep working on OLED technology to get to the reduction of motion blur that CRTs were able to achieve.
@@GTXDash Can't wait for multi-stack RGB-OLED with native HDR-RBFI, which will tide us over until eQD which will hopefully have a native rolling-scan modulation method.
Nothing beats a crt! And I have an oled c1, a crt and a plasma so I can say it because I am always comparing... specially the movement of cameras that are very noticed on oled/lcd but not at all on a crt...
11:11 I own both a CRT display @60 Hertz(It's a Sanyo VM4209) and a gaming monitor(BenQ EX2780Q @144 hertz) and I can affirm your claim. They both feel about as smooth to use despite being made about 45 years apart.
If you are ok with CRTs or Backlight strobing on modern displays, i honestly envy you. Here is my story. I used CRTs in school and university and i had headache after some time. Bigger and flat ones were better for me, but still painful after an hour. Some of them ran at 100hz at 768p, also not helping much. Not happening on TV, but i viewed them from quire far. Never had that on TN, IPS, OLED. Friends VA also was okay, but I didn't had them personally. On another hand, my cheap 144hz TN has noticeable motion blur. If i use Backlight strobing it does reduce blur significantly, almost to none. But my eyes hurt after a few minutes. I guess I'm sensitive to that thing.
The PS3 on my widescreen 480p crt at 30fps plays smoother than many PS5 games on my Oled. Not even kidding, just try Resistance, amazingly smooth 30fps.
you point around 7 minute mark is exactly why I push for black frame insertion in modern displays. because these MF dont realize increasing refresh rate doesn't matter if you can't drive it. currently on the oled_gaming subreddit, you can find people literally buying $800-1400 OLED displays but their computer can't even drive them properly. And its just insane. I could drive a 360hz OLED playing counter strike 2 or hunt showdown or world of warcraft, but most gamers cannot. What would be superior is having an LCD/OLED that mimics a CRT in terms of pixels on vs pixels off, giving that same illusion to our eyes that give us such perfect motion clarity. If they developed an OLED that was say 240hz and included a true black frame insertion mode that kept the full refresh rate, it would be pretty sweet. As it stands, modern BFI will generally double your visual performance. 120hz + BFI looks exactly the same as native 240hz. 240hz + BFI would look like native 480hz.... and obviously having less fps, BFI helps improve. Sure, new 4k monitors are coming that are 240hz, and have a 120hz BFI mode (runs in 240hz mode, but only every other frame is displayed, so frame black frame black frame black and so on). sure, for console, that 120hz + BFI mode might be awesome, but most people already have 120hz OLED gaming TV's with BFI.... not to mention television BFI is superior because both LG and SONY (the top brands for oled tv's) use a "rolling scan" black frame insertion. and it works. hell my sony xperia 1 mark 2 uses a rolling scan BFI and its only 60hz but feels like 120hz. its amazing. watching movies/anime on my phone in bed is way nicer than watching anime/movies on my PC gaming monitor, simply because my aw3423dw 3440x1440 175hz oled doesn't have BFI. so you get extreme judder in panning shots and its clear as day in anime.... yet on my phone which is oled + BFI you can't even tell it exists.... I would kill for a proper 240hz+BFI oled gaming monitor. sadly, we aren't getting it yet. i had that shitty ips viewsonic blur busters certified 1080p display which had BFI at 60, 120, and 240hz.... 60hz bfi made my eyes hurt. it was atrocious. 120hz + bfi wasn't bad, but looked like native 240hz.... and then 240hz vs 240hz+bfi was no difference because pixel response wasn't good enough to show a difference. so technically its ;capped to 240hz with or without BFI. however OLED actually has TRUE sub 1ms pixel response, so any BFI at any level would be amazing. I really want 240hz+BFI.... true 240hz BFI. a solution to the native aliasing on crt displays for LCD/OLED? honeycomb subpixel structure. instead of a subpixel of red/green/blue we need a technology where 1 subpixel can produce the entire range of color in one subpixel. have it in a honeycomb/hexagonal setup. and since the subpixels would be so small, you end up with a sharper display as the PPI would be much much higher.
These are arguably Mitsubishi's best tubes they ever produced, better quality as far as fidelity and IQ than the slightly newer 2070SB tube, much like Sony's GDM-5002PT9 being better than the GDM-F520, despite being older, it's the phosphor quality and electronics being slight better in the slightly older models for some reason.
I hope so. If it's a high refresh rate display where 5 out of 6 frames are black while the 1 is bright enough to compensate for the 5x darkening caused by those 5 frames. Sounds outrageous but that's really what it's gonna take to reach that level of no motion blur that CRTs are known for.
Standard BFI, that is straight impulse modulation can not produce the same type of motion IQ and performance that raster-scan CRTs can, so for BFI to make CRTs obsolete, they will need to come up with an effective "race the beam" algorithm to simulate raster-scan, this will also need to simulate the incredibly fast phosphor decay times and phosphor glow and all that good stuff that CRTs have, the hardest thing to match will be the CRTs incredible native image depth, which with a good quality input source can be almost three-dimensional, looking glass, aka light-field tech is a good candidate.
I love CRT tvs. I still have my "40inch" Toshiba CRT. Play my PS4 on it. The image clarity, sound (bass/treble/theator quality surround sound), color depth, contrast, etc are amazing to me. One of the many things I love about my CRT (and it's a major plus) is that the image & sound quality have not decreased at all over the years. Nor has the image started to look washed out/overlit. Every HD tv I've had (top brands too) have always lost image & sound quality as they start to age & always end up looking washed out. My CRT Toshiba still looks & sounds just as great as the day I bought it. Great video!
bro... not saying i dont like crts but i m not sure if i can take a person serious that talks sound from tv speakers... what about you just get an actual amplifier and speakers and use those instead?
I forgot the name of the tech... it was supposed to replace CRT with a pixel grid structure like LCD, but, each pixel was a very small cathode ray tube like pixel... that would've been a good replacement... I think. Maybe, though, the motion blur would still be a problem with that as well.
@@ShankMods Makes me sad every time I think about SED & FED, even Pioneer's Kuro tech got shut down, seems like quailty displays are only destined for the professional grade markets.
I have a 21" IBM P275 (fd trinitron tube) that can do 1024x768 at 120hz or 1600x1200 at 100hz, it's super awesome for retro gaming, and only paid like 10 bucks for it. Wish I could also get a FW900 to use for modern gaming but no luck so far
I bet it can do even more than 120Hz at 1024x768. My own can do 118Hz at that resolution, I couldn't get it any higher. Meanwhile, I can only hope for 75Hz on 1600x1200. Try to see if you can squeeze a higher refresh rate out of it.
@@elu9780 yeah, thats just the default EDID, technically it can go all the way to 170, at least for the lowest resolutions. However I really do not need any more, 120 is plenty already. VR which is most sensitive to lattency and whatnot does fine with just 90
15:13 IMO the Kega Fusion composite is a bit *too* blurry, should be a middle option that has ~213 horizontal lines and another that doesn't completely blur the image so you can still see dithering but it's less obvious.
I tried 120Hz + BFI on my OLED (the LG 65 G1 can do that). It passed the UFO test for me. Regardless of the speed I couldn't see any motion blur anymore. But 120Hz without BFI was already quite good.
I have a CRT monitor I got free from someone and I love it. It has downsides like, yeah, size and danger if dropped or if I ever need to repair to, but it works better for me. I game at 1024x768 at 118Hz (the best I can get out of it), and it actually works *very* well, I oftentimes forget that it's not 1080p. As long as I have antialiasing enabled, at least. I did have to scrub the damaged anti-glare coating off it because otherwise it was awful, so I can't really use it without having the curtains closed in my room. I will not be getting any new LCD or any flat panel monitor until I can get something that is as good as a CRT in picture quality and feel. And I do wish I could exchange resolution for refresh rate on modern monitors.
I"m still using my CRT for playing games, sometimes i use the LED ones for some games and aplications such as Adobe Animate, Blender, Premiere but my main playing monitor is the CRT one, Motion Clarity even at 60 hertz is another level, there is no modern scream that come even close to what CRTs can make, there's no input lag, colors are great, natural bloom, black levels.. CRT is the king.
Yeah I picked up 3 CRT's on the side of the road and the Sony Trinitron 32inch that I got is just amazing. Plugging in a Super Nintendo with Composite cable looks almost crystal clear, there's no latency, and no blurring or ghosting. It just looks incredible, and it has a warmer glow that feels more alive than the artificial light that my LCD gives off.
There almost was one. SED/FED was explored, but never really went anywhere. If it had worked out, though, we would have had something very much like a CRT in a thinner form factor. If someone seriously wanted to revive that technology today, they would probably want to start from where SED/FED left off rather than go all the way back to CRTs, given that they'd have to be making new tooling and such.
There is still aliasing, but I get what you mean about it. I went to check it on my CRT and I guess it seemed less noticeable, playing with 640x480 had the same amount of aliasing as playing 1280x720 on my other PC with a normal monitor; it may be because of the game though.
The last of the CRT TVs, partiicularly HD CRTs did have lag due to said digital processing unless you were at 1080i. Also I do have a VGA CRT I like to use, an Apple Multiple Scan 20 and 17. Both are great and the 17 is 70khz while the 20 is 81khz. I typically use it at 1600x1200@60hz
Backlight strobing is superior to black frame insertion and is used on the best motion resolution monitors. Ulmb 2 can do it with variable refresh rates. This can actually give a lower lag than CRT because it is not refresh rate locked ( but at much higher cost). I game on an 800by 600 17inch crt @ 100hz, vsync off. It cost about 100 pounds 20 years ago
Yep, you're right. Strobing is superior, this is where things should be headed. But CRTs still have lower lag because electrons are just faster, however, OLEDs are getting close because now we're at the point where most people can't tell the difference, I'll give you that.
I'm just so used to having games only play 20-30 FPS because of my computers and internet and my computers' lack of graphics cards and having poor CPUs.
On the topic of latency, do hdmi or display port to vga converters add latency? If so would you know how much? On my CRT it doesn't feel noticeable but I'm just curious what penalty conversion brings
There's a tiny bit of latency from hdmi to vga or dp to vga. However, because a CRT doesn't wait for an internal frame buffer before drawing the frame on screen, a CRT even with an active converter still has a lot less lag than an LCD.
Can be a frame or two, some like the higher quality delock converters can be as low as a few scanlines of latency (which is nothing), so it depends on the DAC quality.
EhhHHhhHhh saying 4K flat screens have a better resolution than CRTs is not entirely true 😅CRTs accidentally have more resolution than any pixel based displays, even the silicon based ones. The light beam blasted through a shadow mask or an aperture grille is not even in brightness and color from the centre to the edge unlike a pixel, which creates a lot of new ranges of contrast spots once finally hitting the phosphor that our sharp retina could actually perceptive and thus makes the overall picture not only smoother but more detailed, because we do sink in that subtle change of contrast and a grain of phosphor is still far far smaller than a pixel. Ironically the same can't be said for films 🎞anymore, but it took an 8K camera sensor shrunk down to the size of a beer pint opening to finally beat the amount of grains found on a film with actual pixels all thanks to silicon based technologies. This is why emulating the CRT look on modern displays actually takes more than 4K if not 8K or even more to finally get a tolerable nuanced shades of lights we can expect to see through a single shadow mask slit. Black frame insertion is really helpful in getting there as well, especially now that it also exists on OLEDs but CRT filters are actually quite expensive to run on any GPU, and thankfully they are making good progress even to these days. Also one advantage not many seems to know is how much better CRTs are in near dark representation as OLEDs will have to give up and shut down past a certain brightness and can't go any lower. LCDs are suffering from backlight glow so they are also out of the competition. So good luck building a 21841684 pounds 55" CRT display at a reasonable price and power consumption, LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 💪💪 🚛 Now all sincerely, those CRTs may look great but only thanks to their inaccuracy that as I said before accidentally turns into extra details. I'd rather trade more control over pixels than relying on blurry random shades of lights provoked by the CRT technology, even more now that HDR has finally brought back most of these color nuances.
Tbf I don't get why they don't just make LCD's by the sub-pixel instead of by the pixel. That way a 4K monitor, except for very saturated scenes, would really be 11520*2160 Y resolution.
I got an Asus 27" 1440p woled and an Acer 390hz ips monitor and with them I am still mid in say warzone and bf2042, but with a crappy 17" samtron crt I am always on the top charts and even being called a cheater. Explain that :P a cheap CRT even at 85hz with zero inputlag is the gaming king...
i used to play with a dual seemless monitor setup of 320hz each and for like a month of playing CSGO every single day for hours, i could barely kill one or two people a day. a week ago i bought a chinese 1990s completely trashed but working 12' crt monitor and ihave been on the top 10 players IN THE WORLD this past 5 days. thx crt
CRTs are gone for ever so we have to take good care of the ones left. I think the only downside of VGA CRTs is they tend to cause eye strain, I'm not sure why though. I use 15KHz CRTs for all my analog consoles from PS2 and GC backwards, these games look their best on a 15KHz CRT and I don't suffer any kind of eye strain nor any inconvenience, but when I use the 31KHz VGA CRTs for modern games (even at 85Hz) my eyes feel tired and I feel I have to rest... maybe it's the finer scanline requiring more light or something else. CRTs are a must for sidescrolling games, OLED could be good but has to get brighter for the "BFI Rolling Scan" to really work, my OLED BX motion looks acceptable with this BFI at 60Hz but luminance gets so low that it's hard to see, dark tones get crushed and it's not a great experience overall, that function was removed since newer OLEDs like C3 doesn't have a real rolling scan just a BFI very useless so yeah... CRTs are still a need for video games
Absolutely. I hope manufacturers find a solution to real, super fast strobing or BFI so that modern gamers can see what we've been missing in our games for 2 decades.
we need brand new 24 inch CRT monitors and consumer TVs, bigger than 24 is not economic to manufacture. I hope one of the TV manufacturers finally sees the market for this kind of product and start producing them. I recently ran DOOM in PCem which emulated old 1980s and 1990s PCs, and it looks horrible on my display that's why I will definitely buy a CRT.
Could you "emulate" a CRT with a 240HZ Monitor, if your PC/Console can only render 60Hz by only displaying an Image only every 4 Frames and leaving the other 3 Frames black?
@@joman104 Are you able to get authentic 640x480 via HDMI-to-VGA? I get blurred upscaled high-resolution image. I am yet to understand what forces upscale. My best guess was that HDMI is just not supporting low resolutions, so videocard upscales image via HDMI, and I get no scanlines
@@joman104 Windows 10 can set up resolution as low as 800x600 (blurred). nVidia can setup 640x480. It is also blurred. And programs just don't work right anyway. I have much better output with Kramer VP-724XL. I downscale 1280x960 to 640x480, and it is awesome. Also, this particular hardware can correct color, which is essential for old fading CRT. Don't know how much use of it, though. Hardware downscaler is supposed to be connected to modern devices which have color correction anyway. A harder quest is with authentic DOS hardware, but then I would prefer not to scale anything, and for that matters I would connect DOS directly to CRT, but then I cannot tune up drastically faded colors
Human eyes can tell the difference up to 540 hz. We can almost for sure see more than that but we don't have displays that can put out more than that right now.
I would be using CRTs if they were still made. I still have a CRT monitor and TV but unfortunately modern content is just not made for the 4:3 format and I don't want to deal with two massive black bars on a small screen, so I stick to using older consoles on them.
Have you dabbled with black frame insertion on OLED monitors? I have a lgc1 tv that does it. It Darkens the picture a lot and the flicker feels noticeable but it seems to help a lot with blur. I've been thinking about this quest we've been on to get to where we were 30 years ago and it makes me mad lol. These 1000 dollar alternatives are only just now approaching CRT levels of clarity and it's very unsustainable when you account for new games with better visuals and higher pixel counts. The industry is full of snake oil too with things like frame generation which increases input lag and decrease responsiveness to appear better.😢 I'd but a new CRT if a company started making them again.
@testtube173 Even I play newer games on a modern display. It really does depend where the tradeoff of motion clarity for image sharpness/resolution no longer becomes worth it. BFI is better than nothing, but even without it, I still generally only play games on my CRT if they predate the 2010s.
The issues with crts, while covered are underplayed here for sure, number one being you can only buy used and burn in can be an issue so the supply is dwindling. Noise causes by the crt is another issue. Also the claims of crts being cheap or free because you can only buy used is disingenuous. Lcd monitors can be acquired in the same way, and much easier imo. Finally you don't even mention how fatiguing the flicker can be for a considerable portion of people. This makes crt unusable in many situations for people, and is a major reason crts are dead. This video does a good job at sharing benefits of crts, but I mostly take issue with the title declaring then better.
There are caveats to everything. Keep in mind, just because I made a statement on how there are things a CRT is good at doesn't necessarily mean some of these things don't overlap with LCDs. I would never use a CRT to browse the web or edit a video as an example. There's a lot of things a CRT is worse at and which I did cover. There's definitely more I can mention, but I had to stop somewhere. There's nothing disingenuous about the title of the video. Definitely opinionated for sure but not disingenuous.
I did not mean to imply the title was disingenuous, just the statement that crts are cheaper (or free) than LCDs, while the used market for both is similar
CRTs went away also for another reason, power consumption, in the late 90s computer usage exploded, everyone in their offices started using a computer, having CRTs using all that power and generating heat would only create more problems in the long run as well factoring the other mentioned problems like size and weight. Oh yeah, also because laptops and notebooks also became much more popular and LCDs are the only thing you can use on those, so why have 2 factories to produce 2 different screen technologies when you can just have one factory making LCDs for all markets?
I really wish I had my custom pc and a crt monitor to try fortnite out... I already found the animation cancel to be as effective as it was in gunz the duel... wow.. that game was the biggest hacker playground for my youth.
Well, there are two different FPS: one is displayed FPS and one is rendered FPS. Before Nvidia's G-Sync tried to make them the same this is how displays worked. If you turned off VSYNC in your game there would be tearing, and you could "display" 200fps on a 60Hz screen (sort-of, not really ofc.). The opposite is also true: you can render things at 30fps with say 90Hz refresh rate, each frame will be drawn 3 times then. Still, you make very interesting points in this video, and my 30kg of mostly glass CRT monitor indeed displays motion better than the S-IPS LCD I still use. I wouldn't say that the difference is huge, maybe my eyes aren't sensitive to the effect. It was far worse on a PVA monitor I had before: great for photos, perfect black, good colors, terrible for motion, despite also having a "60Hz refresh". Guess several frames got blurred together there.
Having a preference for CRT's is one thing. Claiming they are better is another. Yes, we can argue CRT's may have better motion clarity and can be more forgiving to low resolutions compared to OLED but in every other major category are massively outperformed. Picture quality, clarity, colours, shadows, and the complete lack of flickering compared to CRT make OLED's so much superior. Flicker is a major issue. The reality is most people find it distracting, that's why BFI technology has seemingly stopped evolving. Companies just won't invest in it anymore, even though it has the potential to be as good or better than CRT's motion.
@@GTXDash Yes. You fail to mention how vastly superior OLED is in terms of colour reproduction, black lvls, contrast, gamma, anti glare, upscaling, and more importantly out of the box colour accuracy. CRTs back in the day were all crushing the black levels, unless you had some ultra high end model. They also suffer from black lvl wash when subjected to peripheral lighting. Outside of retro gaming, the technology is just not holding up at all in today’s world.
i wish that modern flat monitors would be thicker for sake of more Z depth, i think the glass did play some roll, i think it is possible that in the future that glowy Z depth travel might be a real think + relaxed natural colors, crt does this displacment naturally by colors and fades but that Z is not 100% naturally correct
if only there were something GPU manufactures could code something that wouldn't be a performance hit that simulates anything a CRT can do when sending video data to any flat screen, watched this video on an LED AOC 1600x900 60 hz monitor that is connected to my gaming laptop via a DVI to HDMI converter
bro its same on shooters. On 240hz all the enemy peeks feels so fast. And when u push the game on lower hz u cant react better its weird lol new tech is all bs
Most games run at over 240 fps and on my pc is kinda old so i dont really see it useful unless youre on a budget or like it for nostalgia/ style. This is interesting if I want to set up up a second pc cheap or an emulation station
You know I have a question. Has Anyone tried to emulate the Cathode drawing on High Refresh rate modern monitors? The limitation re implemented as a feature? It definitely can be mathed out now.
@@GTXDash not what I meant. I am talking about the literal raster of the Tube not shadow masks or up scalers/Line doublers. IE on the 300+hz displays you would get a partial frame that is X pixels tall with a fading frame of the last one emulating the frame retention rather than the black insertion frames. Basically it using the absurd refreshrate to regain the old limitation of the raster the cathode tube did line by line. Giving even new displays the rolling shutter effect. More of a trickery for pure digital signals instead. I don't see anything like that anywhere. By all means new graphics cards should be able to do this imitation.
The BVM-X300/V2 uses a very effective 60Hz rolling-scan BFI algorithm, and so do a few other PVM's & BVM's, Dolby's 4200 Pulsar reference monitor has pretty amazing CRT emulation, but still falls very short of a CRT's motion IQ & performance, the best we have ever seen is what Pioneers Kuro engineers managed to cook up, that is Subfield-Drive, this produces almost the same motion performance as a CRT @ 65-70Hz, with incredible IQ.
@@Wobble2007 Bingo so it has been tried.. also is the Subfield-Drive only on LCDs? I can only find Demos of it on old tech promos. This is exactly what i was asking about.
OLED is almost perfect, Almost. Even if they say that they do have better colors, black level, and contrast, to me, it's too perfect to where it starts to become distracting, as all the colors never seemed to blend all in like they did on a CRT, as well as OLED is just too sharp for me no matter how you use the settings it's also too distracting as CRT never had this problem as far as I remember. You see, I'm more of a TV/movie watching guy and I feel that the imperfections of a CRT is what makes the image look beautiful, just like how paintings aren't perfect either, as if it was, it would all be boring. The colors and black level are "good enough" for me and probably for most people as well like you said. Also, I'll give you a cool tip, if you have a CRT that is a little worn, you can buy a scaler like the Atlona AT-HD-SC-500 that will let you add more brightness and color to the CRT it is connected to. Also, I don't know if it's me, but for some reason, 1080i always looks the best on these CRT monitors (especially with the scaler when the input resolution in 1080p and then the output resolution is set to 1080i) while the other resolutions (besides non interlaced) always look blurrier. You can get pretty interesting results and connect things you didn't think were possible with a scaler, you should get one (especially the atlona) whenever you can.
nope, oled have issues with displaying grayish and dark grayiish shades. it looks noisy or "dirty". at least the woled monitors do, have not tried a qd-oled yet. I have an asus 240hz woled and I would say the experiance is mid tier. have an acer 390hz ips as well and they are very close, oled has blacker blacks but that is it. CRT is so much better for gaming.
