61–70 of 89 posts
I know someone who converted one of these into a home-made terminal, so they could connect to the computer at school and work from home. They drilled a hole into the TV, added a socket for video input which bypassed the antenna/demodulator, and hooked it up to a home-made 8-bit computer. 32 columns!
Yeah, so mumble years ago my second monitor was a B&W workstation monitor that I picked up for next to nothing. It was actually slightly higher resolution than my other "proper" monitor, and much sharper. I had to make a converter from a VGA output on my video card to a single coaxial signal for the monitor. Luckily the monitor just wanted pull-to-ground for the blanking signals (both of them), so I could make a pass…
Downside was that the Hercules - while being very high resolution for the day - was only monochrome, and amber. But it was a common solution for many CAD systems (with a price to match of course).
IIRC, it was also a setup that some later game programmers used (I may be wrong, but IIRC, Carmack used something like this?) - because they could run the debugger on the monochrome Hercules, while outputting the game on the color monitor (CGA/EGA/VGA). This was well after better solutions came around for CAD, so the Hercules setup was a relatively inexpensive upgrade.
Sounds like I need to hook up my 2" Sinclair MTV1 or Seiko wrist TV watch, both of which have just been gathering dust. However, neither have any sort of input -- is there a USB or HDMI ultra low power VHF or UHF transmitter so I can go total Terry Gilliam in the house with multiple displays??
Whatever you do with that TV watch, though, don't destroy it. It might not be right now, but someday in the not-too-far future it could be worth some serious cash by a TV collector. Honestly, it might be that way now - so check into that before jumping into something like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a bunch of computer CRT monitors and the only way to get bad refresh rate that you actually notice is to set them at 60Hz. At 70Hz or above (most can do 85Hz, any good CRT monitor should be able to go above that) you wont have any issues. Also while this can cause eye fatigue (which depends from person to person), i could never find any proof (and i just did a quick search) that there is any sort of permanent…
PAL Amiga monitors were the worst with their 50Hz refresh. I'm somewhat surprised my eyes didn't suffer more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counter proof is TV viewing skews extremely old, and there's plenty of elderly who've been staring into 60Hz screens for multiple decades with no obvious TV related illnesses.
You are typically not watching them at the same distance either, and the fact that TV screens are interlaced might also affect the flickering effect (I understand 1990s monitors weren't). I remember that my 67Hz macintosh monitor was really stressing my eyes as a teenager, while I never had this problem with a TV.
Want an idea? Look at this:
https://www.haplessgenius.com/mocha/
Now imagine being 10 years old, and having that in front of your face while coding in BASIC, glowing from a 19" TV mere inches in front of you...hehe. That was me!
I won't claim one way or the other to not have suffered damage of some sort - I'm really not sure.
Strangely, my mom always complained to me about "sitting to close to the TV" - but had no problem when I was in front of this thing for hours on end, typing away, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does a low refresh rate damage eyes? Got a link? Legit question, not looking for an argument.
The counter proof is TV viewing skews extremely old, and there's plenty of elderly who've been staring into 60Hz screens for multiple decades with no obvious TV related illnesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He will. Kids try to find loop-holes in every single rule, and they will deliberately misinterpret everything you say in order to use it against you later on. :)
When my daughter asks me "Daddy, can you ", I usually reply with "Yes" and then leave it at that. Then should responds with "WILL you ", and I do it. I very clearly taught her the difference between can and will by doing so. And now she does the same thing to my wife. And I get in trouble for it. It's great.
I still use a CRT. Works great, no fuss. Its just heavy to move, which I don't do often. People comment on how rich the colors are. 85hz refresh solves the 'flicker' issue.
CRTs are unmatched for specific use cases. Retro consoles that predate HD support (and a few that can technically output HD like the PS2 are still better on a CRT), rhythm gaming (I play Clone Hero, which is an independent Guitar Hero-style engine, on a 120Hz CRT), and viewing SDTV content are three use cases where flat panel displays just cannot match all of the benefits that CRTs offer. However, I still agree that…
I'd say for PC usage they _were_ unmatched, but that's no longer the case. I played games professionally at one point, of course using CRTs when they were the superior choice, but in this day and age with affordable 240hz sub-1ms G2G LCD displays...
I just can't see any argument for using a CRT with a PC in 2019.
Sounds like I need to hook up my 2" Sinclair MTV1 or Seiko wrist TV watch, both of which have just been gathering dust. However, neither have any sort of input -- is there a USB or HDMI ultra low power VHF or UHF transmitter so I can go total Terry Gilliam in the house with multiple displays??
The TV watch is all-in-one? I thought those usually had an external tuner that plugged into the wrist "monitor" via a cable of some sort? If so, then find the pinout and type of connector it is, and try to hack it that way. Whatever you do with that TV watch, though, don't destroy it. It might not be right now, but someday in the not-too-far future it could be worth some serious cash by a TV collector. Honestly, it m…
The Seiko T001 does have an external tuner and routinely go for $400-500+ on eBay, depending on condition.
https://monochrome-watches.com/seiko-t001-mother-smart-watch...