Is this CRT monitor still worth getting today? If so, how much would you pay for one in very good condition?
Only for very niche cases.
Would I get one today? No. I have no need for 16:10 CRTs which would only be useful for PC games.
I'd much rather get a BVM series 4:3 or 16:9 CRT TV for older media content, such as 240p consoles (ex: NES or Sega Saturn) or for widescreen capable systems (ex: Wii or Playstation 2).
16:10 would letterbox any 4:3 or 16:9 content made around when CRTs were made, so it would only really be useful as a computer monitor, and CRTs only really excel over modern screens for playing games, and I have little reason to play older PC games on a CRT. If I were a big Diablo 2 buff, I might want one for the nostalgia's sake, but I'm not.
They tend to go for ~$200 or more in very good condition, but good luck with finding one in that kind of condition. They get bought up instantly on eBay and craigslist. In fact you'll see ads on Craigslist for people looking for FW900s.
are tyou autistic just out of cuiroustiy?
Magic as far as I'm concerned.
I don't keep up-to-date on the latest monitor technology to be honest.
I only check up once I need a new one.
The only reason I knew about the ISP monitors is because someone here posted an article about it a months ago.
>terrible motion/persistence blur similar to a LCD due to the Sample and Hold effect and needs some kind of Backlight thing to combat it
>Fixed Pixel Display
>Severe Burn-in problems
>Blue Leds die faster so they put in shitty white leds and make it WRGB
>Still has input lag
The only good thing about it is the black levels
We got better tech that never got a chance
And there's the Laser Beam Scanning MEMS display that is in some shitty Pico Projectors and is probably never going to get any serious R&D despite it being:
Zero Motion Blur
Zero Input Lag
Zero Scanout Lag
The display industry sucks these days
SED/FED shit sounds like too much of the other downsides of plasma.
Input lag doesn't have to be significant with OLED, or the refresh rate.
No backlight is needed if the pixels can be directly strobed. Longevity, motion blur, bright will all be fixed ast the same time or never at all.
But I like playing media back on displays that were made in its time. I would rather play an N64 on a 4:3 CRT than have it enlarged to fit a 16:9 LCD.
Content made back when CRT displays were around were either DVD format (4:3) or in some cases HD format, 720p (16:9).
16:10 doesn't fit either case well, so it's really best only as a computer monitor, of which I don't need, since I didn't get into building PCs until 6 years ago, when 1920x1080 TN displays were already popular.
Like I said before, if I were into stuff like CSS or Diablo 2, it'd be a blast to play those games on a nice 16:10 CRT, but I never played those games, and as such, I probably wouldn't drop cash to try to get a computer that can play those games.
Nah SED was far more reliable than Plasma it just got caught on Patents Hijinks
It's better than OLED
Strobing doesn't eliminate all motion blur
You're at the mercy of your Hz@FPS
And you can't use Lightboost on 60hz in most Lightboost Monitors and even then
60hz at 60fps Lightboost still has more motion blur than 60fps at 60hz CRT
And even then LCD's which are far brighter than OLED's look pretty dark using Lightboost so OLED will be much worse in that regard
>Input lag doesn't to be significiant with OLED
Neither does anything according to manufacturers/display companies
The only significant thing to them is how thin they can get the display to look to get suckers to shell their shekels
>still input lag
>motion/persistence blur like a LCD
>lower brightness than LCD
>fixed pixel display
>problem with blue leds
I mean this is the new Plasma...nothing more,nothing less
You can play many games nowadays in 16:10
And it's not like the black bars on 16:9 material are really huge on 16:10 monitors
And you can play your n64 in 4:3 on an LCD monitor it'll have black borders but you can play it that way
In any case a FW900 is still superior to any monitor nowadays
The only flaw is they're probably all worn out by now and they might not last you for long
nice display, but the curved screen is not as nice as the FW900's flat one.
>And you can play your n64 in 4:3 on an LCD monitor it'll have black borders but you can play it that way
It will also look like a jagged, blurry mess, and absolutely nothing like you remember it, or how it was intended.
>FW900 is still superior to any monitor nowadays
>The only flaw is they're probably all worn out by now and they might not last you for long
Doubtful, I have CRTs from the 80s that still work just fine. At worst you might need to recap it in the next decade,
CRTs don't have the longevity that LCD panels do. Every CRT panel I've ever owned eventually developed a high pitched whine, bleeding reds, an unbearable blurry picture, among other things.
That Sony is undeniably nice, but considering its age and the fact that the UPS guys are going to kick that shit around in transit, I'd have to pass.
I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but in electronics, weight has historically implied well built or high end equipment. There's a reason chinese manufacturers put junk or concrete in flimsy plastic electronics (like home phones) to make them seem `high quality'
Reliability is proven by use. I was referring to image defects present in plasma retained on SED.
Strobing and motion blur is all on a sliding scale of effectiveness. If the black periods were shorter, there wouldn't be any flicker. Although, if were too constant, there wouldn't be any reduction in blur.
>Neither does anything according to manufacturers/display companies
Negligible input lag, not whatever the company priority lies.
The consequences to Lightboost should be obvious, and reduced brightness should be a obvious drawback if the screen is being turned off for a portion of the time.
>nice display, but the curved screen is not as nice as the FW900's flat one.
Less geometry distortion (Trust me, at 1600p your gonna notice)!
And for a flat screen its a more or less whole price difference.
And thicker glass so much heavier
Everybody who still clamors for CRTs today has never tried to calibrate one recently. Unless you find an unopened one in forgotten in a warehouse, it's almost certain that phosphor deterioration will make the display unable to be calibrated and will look like shit.
Modern mid-tier IPS displays are more likely than not a lot more accurate in color reproduction than high-end CRTs of old. You can calibrate them under 1 deltaE very easily and even cheaper ones manage 99% AdobeRGB coverage.
>In any case a FW900 is still superior to any monitor nowadays
In what sense? Color gamut, color volume, contrast ratio, brightness, widescreen? CRTs such as the FW900 might still be the best in some of these categories, but not all of them.
I'm really liking the ridiculously sharp text I'm reading off my new 23.6" IPS 4K monitor. And I'm sure reading text is a lot more pleasant on a modern day monitor than a CRT where if you try to increase the resolution past its sweetspot, fine lines and text become a blurry mess due to the limitations of analog signals.
You can keep shilling that FW900, though. I don't really care. It's great in some respects, but not all, and it certainly doesn't warrant purchasing one for any of my use cases.
Probably because you're used to shitty ones (since PC CRTs worth a shit costed thousands of dollars) with low quality components. Even then, my shop test CRT is a low-end 15'' Hitachi that's almost 20 years old and works fine, my Sun rebadged GDM-5010PT is also pretty good.
My W900 is fucked though, but it looks like it was treated like total shit.