Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 288 posts

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#101

Post by bserge »

ardit33 wrote: post #56
thedanbob wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess most people can’t see the flicker on a CRT set at 60Hz, but I can. It’s especially bad in a room with fluorescent lights. First thing I’d do upon sitting down at a new computer with a CRT monitor was to bump up the refresh rate to 75Hz so I didn’t get a headache. Taking standardized tests in the early 2000s on locked down computers in fluorescent-lit test centers was torture.

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference. I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that…

But the fundamental difference is that LCDs are static. Like, if you have a static image on screen, it does not refresh. A CRT is always refreshing at x Hz.

On LED backlit displays, it's the cheap PWM brightness controllers that can be noticeable. They're supposed to pulse hundreds of times a second to maintain the brightness setting, but as you go lower, it can be noticeable and tiring on the eyes.

On LCDs, refresh rates matter only in constantly changing pictures, like movies and games.

On a CRT, you're exposed to the constant refresh flicker even if you're editing a file or reading an article.

All in all, I'm happy with LCDs. Even in games, they're enough for me, I'm not that competitive.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#102

Post by freeqaz »

nottorp wrote: post #85
ashtonkem wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d recommend adding bias lighting to your monitor. It won’t make the monitor less bright, but it’ll light up the wall behind your monitor so there’s less of a contrast between the wall and your monitor, which reduces eye strain.

I tried that but looked like too much effort. Instead, I never turn off the room lights any more when using monitors. Seems good enough since oled is coming.

I use a normal desk lamp and point it at the wall behind my monitors. Super easy, cheap, and effective.

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B083DG5CK1/

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#103

Post by tasty_freeze »

Color convergence on large CRT monitors is problematic. Back in the early 90s I spent $1200 out of my own pocket to buy a 20" CRT. At the time I was designing 3D rasterization algorithms and circuits and would spend hundreds of hours tweaking constants (how much difference loss does a 5b interpolation fraction introduce vs 6b, etc) and A/B testing to get the most cost effective & high quality results.

I bought and returned two and just lived with the defects of the 3rd one when I realized it was impossible to get good convergence across the display. I would confine my A/B tests to a specific area of the screen where convergence was best.

BTW, I forget the exact details, but color convergence at the factory was set with the monitor facing some particular direction, lets say north. If you set up the monitor facing east, the convergence would be off a little bit.

When quality LCDs became available, convergence was a non-issue, but they used dithering to attempt to increase the color gradations, so it didn't really help my kind of work anyway.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#104

Post by beagle3 »

ardit33 wrote: post #56
thedanbob wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess most people can’t see the flicker on a CRT set at 60Hz, but I can. It’s especially bad in a room with fluorescent lights. First thing I’d do upon sitting down at a new computer with a CRT monitor was to bump up the refresh rate to 75Hz so I didn’t get a headache. Taking standardized tests in the early 2000s on locked down computers in fluorescent-lit test centers was torture.

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference. I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that…

An LCD with 20hz won’t give you a headache - an LCD pizel is always on (but only changes on refresh).

A crt pixel is on for only a very short time, while picture results from eye’s persistence of vision (which is also why in movies CRT screens flicker)

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#105

Post by bserge »

vidanay wrote: post #51
elric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many LEDs have an annoying flicker as well, which can be very annoying and distracting for me. Especially around christmas time, when everyone and their grandmother puts out thousands of cheap LEDs. Even when they're not trying to blink, they're still flickering. I suspect I'm sensitive to this kind of stuff because I suffer from migraines, but still, I can't imagine I'm the only one.

Christmas LEDs are technological abominations. They literally hurt to look at.

I don't understand what it is about some LEDs that make your eyes hurt when you look at them.

Best way I can describe it is that my eyes can't focus on them and are constantly trying to.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#106

Post by ardit33 »

nichch wrote: post #60
ardit33 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference. I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that…

I’ve had a 240hz monitor for a while now and I wouldn’t say 144hz is a waste. I do agree 100-120hz is the sweet spot, good balance of refresh rate and graphical quality. I would not suggest a 240hz monitor if you are not playing competitive shooters a majority of the time.

I agree. By 'a waste', I didn't mean that it is not better, but I meant that it is a diminishing returns curve, and you will end up sacrificing a lot to achieve it (resolution and graphical quality, as computing is not free) and it doesn't feel that much better. Going from 60HZ to 120, or even 90HZ is very noticeable by everyone, even in normal 2D content. Past 120 it is like, eh, just a bit better.

Between 120HZ 4k, and 240HZ HD, I'd take the 120HZ 4k Between 120HZ 4k, and 90HZ 4k but with fully Ray Casting, I'd take the 90HZ (unless it is a competitive FPS)

etc...

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#107

Post by nitrogen »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #103

Color convergence on large CRT monitors is problematic. Back in the early 90s I spent $1200 out of my own pocket to buy a 20" CRT. At the time I was designing 3D rasterization algorithms and circuits and would spend hundreds of hours tweaking constants (how much difference loss does a 5b interpolation fraction introduce vs 6b, etc) and A/B testing to get the most cost effective & high quality results. I bought and re…

In my youth I bought one of those types of high end monitor second hand. Had 5 BNC inputs and required a resolution tweaking utility to change the sync polarity.

I spent hours tweaking convergence on the 9 million trim pots to get it just right. Best color gamut of any display I ever owned. Sadly the display physically broke something internal when I lost the included plastic screwdriver and tried using a metal one. The internal heads of the trim pots were apparently connected to the circuit.

The display was fixed to 1024x768x75Hz exactly (though you could squeeze in a bit more with modeline tweaking), but the colors were great.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#108

Post by Matthias247 »

WalterBright wrote: post #98

> Taylor said in an interview that he's willing to pay up to $500. I wonder what the shipping cost of those heavy monsters are. Me, I've used CRTs for 25 years. I have zero nostalgia for them. I don't want to ever use one again. There's nothing about them I prefer.

Reminds me of a story in when I was in university in around 2005. In our usenet group some people found a sale of used fw900s (definitely for less than 500€ each). They then organized a group buy, which had around 20 interested people.

Then they wondered how they would actually get all of those transferred across half the country. I think in the end they rented a truck or trailer to pick them up. It was definitely a bigger feat than getting a LCD shipped from your favorite online store.

Re: A 20-year-old CRT monitor can be better than a 4K LCD (2019)

#110

Post by nitrogen »

deergomoo wrote: post #43
thedanbob wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess most people can’t see the flicker on a CRT set at 60Hz, but I can. It’s especially bad in a room with fluorescent lights. First thing I’d do upon sitting down at a new computer with a CRT monitor was to bump up the refresh rate to 75Hz so I didn’t get a headache. Taking standardized tests in the early 2000s on locked down computers in fluorescent-lit test centers was torture.

I’m fine with 60 but I’m in a PAL region so all of my 90s consoles run at 50Hz. That is seriously uncomfortable to look at now and I have no idea how we all put up with it.

Presumably the phosphors in the PAL CRTs glowed for longer?
Post reply on HN