151–160 of 288 posts
Ugh. Keyboard hipsters are bad enough. Now we're going to have CRT hipsters! It's like, name some piece of newly vintage tech, find its fans, start a movement, sell folks their shit nostalgia, lather, rinse, repeat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like 4k is pretty darned wasteful part of the hedonic treadmill. At a more reasonable resolution, this processing power could be used for higher-end graphics algorithms, better AI, longer battery life, and so on.
Compared to what? A cheaper monitor? On a relative basis, spending $400 on a 4k monitor vs $250 on a similar 1440p monitor is wasteful. But if you compare to any other category of goods, it's a drop in the bucket. Most people don't even consider efficiency when adding thousands of dollars of options to a new car purchase. You can buy a lot of 4k monitors for the amount families spend on larger than needed houses thro…
There really isn't a lot to justify a 32" IPS 4K144 over a 48" OLED 4K120 other than burn-in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
I do it for both the monitor and the TV, with two cheap "Ingared" lamps from IKEA; can recommend.
Heh, everything is better on Tubes whether it is guitar amps or gaming monitors? :-) I can pretty much assure you that with a 240Hz refresh rate 4K LCD monitor it will look better than your CRT :-) But it is perfectly valid to say "What is the best experience I can get for $X?" and find that CRT solutions out perform LCD solutions at various price points. That said, I suspect it is less about the "superiority" of the…
The CRT monitors do have a faster response time and higher refresh rate (I've seen up to 640x480@480hz But you would be sacrificing fidelity for this "competitive advantage".
A CRT monitor, with a refresh rate of 480 Hz, allows just 2 mS (2.083333 mS to be precise) for excitation of the phosphor. As you know, (here is a similar explainer [2]) the phosphor is excited by the arrival of electrons which contribute their kinetic energy when they impact the phosphor to the electron energy of the particular phosphor. When the energy decays back to base level, it emits a photon at a frequency that is characteristic of the band gap between the excited and rest state of the electrons in the outer orbit of the crystal.
The more electrons you can get excited in the phosphor crystal, the brighter the display. But the more electrons in the beam gives the beam more inertia and so rapidly moving it from one side of the screen to the other requires higher voltage potential.
I haven't seen any high refresh rate CRTs but back in college we had a device which was a "flying spot" scanner which had a very fast phosphor but it was enclosed in a black box and basically relied on photographic film for persistence (it was made by a company called "Dicomed"). The shorter the persistence of the phosphor gave it a very high dynamic range of brightness which allowed us to transfer digital photos with a high dynamic range to film without losing fidelity.
I haven't really followed the evolution of cathode ray tubes post the Sony Trinitron era, I would really love to play with the tube you mention, or at a minimum get the engineers specification for it. I'm assuming it was full color? (the Dicomed's screen was a sort of yellowish white and it had three filters that it would place over the screen to scan out a color image).
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87778main_H-609.pdf
[2] https://www.phosphor-technology.com/how-do-phosphors-work/
Please don't let CRTs come back in style. After a while they tend to develop this headache inducing high pitched tone almost akin to tinnitus that is emitted constantly while they're powered on. It seems to be so high pitched most people cannot hear it at all but if you're one of the lucky few who can it can actually be really disruptive. Unfortunately it's also often loud enough to hear through doors, walls, etc...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have OLED screens all over my house - I can never tell if the monitors are on or off unless the screensaver kicks in. 0 regrets spending that money.
By "monitors" you mean TVs? Or did you buy some of the $3-4k monitors that seem to be available? At a quick google there's nothing under 3k and they're either 21" (too small) or 55" (fine for console gaming but not for programming if you ask me).
Regarding size for programming, I use a 40 inch monitor and wouldn't mind additional width.
Ugh. Keyboard hipsters are bad enough. Now we're going to have CRT hipsters! It's like, name some piece of newly vintage tech, find its fans, start a movement, sell folks their shit nostalgia, lather, rinse, repeat
Being able to choose your desired mechanical response of the keyboard switches is useful for serious work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to what? A cheaper monitor? On a relative basis, spending $400 on a 4k monitor vs $250 on a similar 1440p monitor is wasteful. But if you compare to any other category of goods, it's a drop in the bucket. Most people don't even consider efficiency when adding thousands of dollars of options to a new car purchase. You can buy a lot of 4k monitors for the amount families spend on larger than needed houses thro…
Things are getting obscene at the high end of the treadmill though. Current high-end monitors like 38GN850G and X27 are already plumbing the $2000 price point and the X32 is expected to tip the scale at $3600 MSRP. "Compared to" just going out and buying a TV and using it as a monitor - you could buy a 55" OLED for your PC and a 65" for living room at that price. Or two 55" oleds, replace it in 3 years when it starts…
Fwiw I have a 4k 144 monitor that I got for $800-900. I believe I first heard about it on this site actually. 4k is important to me for text and 120hz is important to me for gaming. It's nice to have both, and gsync compatibility, all in one device. Well worth a small splurge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a digital-to-analog converter. How much latency would that typically add?
If you're using DVI-D -> VGA or HDMI -> VGA, probably a couple of pixels worth on a simple converter, as it would be expensive and unnecessary to cache a whole frame. DP has incompatible timings so I would expect a frame or so on a cheap (though significantly more expensive) converter.
Heh, everything is better on Tubes whether it is guitar amps or gaming monitors? :-) I can pretty much assure you that with a 240Hz refresh rate 4K LCD monitor it will look better than your CRT :-) But it is perfectly valid to say "What is the best experience I can get for $X?" and find that CRT solutions out perform LCD solutions at various price points. That said, I suspect it is less about the "superiority" of the…
> I can pretty much assure you that with a 240Hz refresh rate 4K LCD monitor it will look better than your CRT :-) Since you bring up the refresh rate, then i'd assume that you include motion in the "look better" - in which case, i can easily respond with "no, it absolutely does not". I have a CRT next to me which can do 120Hz at 640x480 (which is a low resolution but the CRT is also very small and i use it on a mid-…