Support NeoGAF

[MrCunningham]

I keep seeing this misconception here.

No amount of time or research will allow LCD technology to overcome their flaws:

-the contrast will never approach that of a crt or plasma because LCD panel pixels do not produce light, they filter light from a backlight so you cannot control the brightness of individual pixels
No amount of 'led backlighting' or 'dynamic contrast' (just dimming the backlight) can solve this.
It's an issue inherent to the technology. (OLED and plasma are much superior to LCD because of this, as the pixels produce their own light just like with a CRT)

I'm not going to argue with you, wince you have clearly researched these topics a lot and know more than I ever will. But I will say that I did lazily tack that onto the end of my post. I guess what I meant to say was that LCD (OLED in particular) will get a little closer to CRT's to the point where your average person won't really notice the differences too much. But they will never match the performance of CRT's. Like you said, OLED's do solve the colour contrast issues but still fall behind in response times.

-the BIG one:
LCD tech* has one major glaring flaw that really REALLY hurts it in gaming (and does not nearly hurt it as much in movies where a lot of the time is spent in static scenes or slow panning scenes): The way it refreshes its images.

*and oled tech too , btw , so don't expect OLED to save us, despite it actually having light producing pixels -solves contrast problem- and having infinitely much better pixel response time (solves lcd smear and ghosting, but does NOT actually give you motion clarity anywhere near crt or plasma, I'll explain why now.


LCD (and oled) panels use a technique called 'Sample and hold'
What this means is that the pixels are continuously lit (because of the backlight)and that the pixels will (painfully slowly in the case of LCD tech, yes even with a 'fast' TN panel) turn to the correct orientation to filter through the correct color of light and then hold that state until it's time for the next frame.
2 problems with this, one BIG and one medium for lcd and not an issue for oled:

Medium: pixel response/transition time: lcd pixels are SLOW to reorient themselves
Grey to grey transition on a faster TN panel at high refresh rate might be 1 ms ish, but that's the marketing number, other color transitions are significantly slower, often up to like 8ms for an IPS panel (at 60 hz half of your frame duration may be spent transitioning a pixel to the right color.
This makes it so that your screen is showing you the wrong color pixel most of the time (let this sink in, really, it's such a glaring defect, defect is the only word that is right for it) , causing a very smeary image in panning scenes ( pretty much all the time in sidescrolling or first person games) or 'ghosting' (a ghost outline from the previous frame from the pixels not having changed yet, especially visible at high contrast edges in motion)

Right, and this is a big reason why LCD's have horrible response times in comparison to CRT's.

-
If only you guys knew how many superior technologies that were in development (and promising + viable) were canned 4-6 years ago because of high LCD panel profit margins at the time.
You think you're supporting an industry and that its success and your money is accelerating technological innovation and advancement but it is quite the opposite.

This is actually not surprising, LCD's with LED back lighting are some of the cheapest monitors to produce and easiest to ship in bulk due to their light weight. Also, the warehouse space is like a fraction of what is needed in comparisons to stocking older CRT's. Companies are making a lot of money without investing a lot in overhead. It's a win for them, so why change this when the consumer has pretty much said "good enough?". Also, introducing newer technologies do take money and time to change the production methods used, which is something that most large corporations don't really want to deal with.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Even an old Trinitron HD TV can do 1840x1035 progressive scan, makes games look amazing down sampled. Just realize that you have less geometry issues with a 4:3 screen, which can still render 16:9. Even 1080I is 60htz and tweaked properly can do a great job at minimizing flicker. You can also find stand alone hardware video scalers for running older consoles at 1080I or 720p. Not sure if they make any with variable resolution adjustments or not.

And, you can fix most geometry and convergence issues on the large crt tvs if you have the money and know the right ISF tech. You will need to have convergence correction magnets installed, and spend a lot of time getting geometry correct.
As for monitors, there is plenty of detailed info on how to get everything nearly 99.9% perfect.

A GDM FW900 does 2560x1600 but flicker is noticeable at that resolution so I set the resolution lower on mine to get higher refresh rates.

I think for consoles, even current gen, CRTs are still king overall. Only issue is if the game is native 1080p/60fps, but you still get a blend of 60 partial frames, so the motion is there.
For older consoles, a pvm/bvm is untouchable.

As far as new tech, I've heard amazing things about the Sony oled pvms. But they are $6000~ for 25 inches.

 

[jimboton]

I'd buy a 22-24 CRT display right now if someone was still making them. Most of the cons of the technology I'm reading here were non-issues in my experience.

 

[DryvBy]

It's all about room and desk real estate. Most people prefer multi-monitoring for PC gaming and 2+ monitors on a desk would be too much. Then in the living room, no one wants to have a giant box taking up room anymore.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

You guys don't?

I don't just use it for ancient consoles, either. I have a VGA cable for the Xbox 360 for a reason. A good HDMI-to-VGA converter, too, for that matter.

I remember how truly awful the early flat-panel displays were, and it convinced me to save the last CRT monitor I ever bought, back when they were still widely available. This set tops out at 720p though.

My main TV is a 2014 Bravia. This monitor only gets used occasionally.

 

[purdobol]

All the bandaids to make LCD panels better for gaming are such a waste of energy to me, energy that should be put in developing better display technology.
LCD tech is not worth dignifying, it's deeply flawed garbage.

What's sad that better tech already available is pushed out of the market. I'm talking about plasma TV's. Not suited as a monitor (plasma up close is not pretty) but for console gaming it's the best thing that came out after CRT. Yet nobody wants to produce them any more...

 

[Ziffles]

They also emitted low levels radiation.

- Radiation: As I used my computer 10+ hours a day the lack of raditation hitting your eyes on a tft was a big plus.

Ok you guys do know that all monitors and light sources emit radiation, correct? It's how we see.

The reason CRTs hurt your eyes after a while was because of the flicker, not from UV radiation.

 

[PantsuJo]

I remember the time of TATE mode with CRT 24/28" screens... The struggle to move and rotate such giant displays lol

 

[FrozenCell]

because the vesa side arm that holds the monitor over my legs on a recliner only allows some 10kg

 

[c0Zm1c]

CRTs are sexy, don't know what you're on about.

Absolutely! The Panasonic TX36PD30 is the sexiest television I've ever owned. I miss that sexy beast dearly.

 

[2+2=5]

Surface-conduction electron-emitter display. Cannon and (I think?) Toshiba showed some prototypes at CES years ago.

Thanks

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Wait a goddamn second. You don't remember how CRTs are like and you still insist they should be standard even though you get multiple pages talking about how impractical it is now in today's tech market?

I'm not insisting. I actually kind of wanted (want) to be given some information that will explain why CRT's had a right to die.

I made thos thread because based on what I had read about different screen technologies, CRT seemed to be objectively better (for monitors designed for gaming), and I thought I must be missing something.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Those tvs use motion interpolation
120 or 240 hz refresh rate with varying rates of backlight off time. (lower persistence = better clarity but comes at an equivalent brightness cost)

If there is a tv that does it at just 60 hz then it will have worse brightness than your average shutter glasses 3d movie in a shitty cinema and flicker as much as a 60hz crt.

Motion interpolation cannot be used for gaming because it creates massive massive amounts of input lag.

The only way to do backlight strobing for gaming is 120 or 144 fps on a 120 or 144hz panel, as I already explained that is not viable for midrange computers (unless all you play is counter strike )
backlight strobing only serves a small niche of users for gaming and even for them the extra cost counts as a really big downside/deterrent.


All the bandaids to make LCD panels better for gaming are such a waste of energy to me, energy that should be put in developing better display technology.
LCD tech is not worth dignifying, it's deeply flawed garbage.

unironic: "LCD technology was a mistake, it's nothing but trash" =p

http://www.blurbusters.com/sony-motionflow-impulse-mode-reduces-motion-blur-without-interpolation/

Sony's backlight strobing doesn't use any interpolation and has enough light output for anything but a brightly lit room. In the evenings my backlight is at 30%. I wouldn't swap it for anything. Regular LCD looks terrible in comparison.

 

[charlequin]

What's sad that better tech already available is pushed out of the market. I'm talking about plasma TV's. Not suited as a monitor (plasma up close is not pretty) but for console gaming it's the best thing that came out after CRT. Yet nobody wants to produce them any more...

For the same reason as the death of CRTs: motion resolution actually isn't as important as a combination of durability, size, and ease of use in a display. Plasma manufacturers did a pretty bad job communicating or reaching those targets compared to LCDs, so their appeal to film buffs and picky gamers didn't spread out to any sort of general market appeal.

 

[ElFly]

I'm not insisting. I actually kind of wanted (want) to be given some information that will explain why CRT's had a right to die.

I made thos thread because based on what I had read about different screen technologies, CRT seemed to be objectively better (for monitors designed for gaming), and I thought I must be missing something.

LCDs are more convenient, due to lack of flicker, lack of the weird hum noise most of them created, higher resolutions, space and weight. That's the end of it. There's no market for other display tech, and better CRT tech arrived too late to the market.

It's p simple.