Are there any true-crt monitors that are more than 21"?

[boe]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I've seen some TV's that claim to be CRTs but they don't support the
resolution or refresh - basically they are TV's with SVGA connectors. One
of my favorite CRT monitor manufacturers is Viewsonic but the largest they
have is a 21" monitor that is 3 years old. I was curious if there are any
larger CRTs available or if I'll have to wait for LCD technology to improve.

I tried out the dell but it seemed for lack of a more inspired term dull
when compared to my 8 year old monitor. And yes, I did adjust things but it
still seemed less vibrant and I'm not referring to just brightness or
contrast. The colors themselves seemed almost faded to a degree - of course
that is just my opinion and I can see there are others with VERY strong
opinions about the benefits of LCD.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

boe wrote:

> I've seen some TV's that claim to be CRTs but they don't support the
> resolution or refresh - basically they are TV's with SVGA connectors.
> One of my favorite CRT monitor manufacturers is Viewsonic but the
> largest they have is a 21" monitor that is 3 years old. I was
> curious if there are any larger CRTs available or if I'll have to
> wait for LCD technology to improve.

Although not in production any more, You still can buy the Sony GDM-FW900
24" Widescreen CRT. Still one of the best crts ever made, I had one myself
but I replaced it with a Dell 2005FPW TFT recently. The FW900 isn't cheap,
though, still around 1500-2000$ here...

> I tried out the dell but it seemed for lack of a more inspired term
> dull when compared to my 8 year old monitor. And yes, I did adjust
> things but it still seemed less vibrant and I'm not referring to just
> brightness or contrast. The colors themselves seemed almost faded to
> a degree - of course that is just my opinion and I can see there are
> others with VERY strong opinions about the benefits of LCD.

Well, I can't say the colors of the Dell TFT (or any other modern brand name
TFT) are less vibrant than on a good crt. But the color reproduction of
course is still better on crts than on most TFTs...

You either can go for the FW900, or for one of the colour-compensated
professional TFTs which are as good in color reproduction as good crts...

Benjamin

 

[boe]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I'm not familiar with the term color compensated. Is this listed like TCO
or other specs on an LCD?

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3b8h75F6fa3e2U2@individual.net...
> boe wrote:
>
>> I've seen some TV's that claim to be CRTs but they don't support the
>> resolution or refresh - basically they are TV's with SVGA connectors.
>> One of my favorite CRT monitor manufacturers is Viewsonic but the
>> largest they have is a 21" monitor that is 3 years old. I was
>> curious if there are any larger CRTs available or if I'll have to
>> wait for LCD technology to improve.
>
> Although not in production any more, You still can buy the Sony GDM-FW900
> 24" Widescreen CRT. Still one of the best crts ever made, I had one myself
> but I replaced it with a Dell 2005FPW TFT recently. The FW900 isn't cheap,
> though, still around 1500-2000$ here...
>
>> I tried out the dell but it seemed for lack of a more inspired term
>> dull when compared to my 8 year old monitor. And yes, I did adjust
>> things but it still seemed less vibrant and I'm not referring to just
>> brightness or contrast. The colors themselves seemed almost faded to
>> a degree - of course that is just my opinion and I can see there are
>> others with VERY strong opinions about the benefits of LCD.
>
> Well, I can't say the colors of the Dell TFT (or any other modern brand
> name TFT) are less vibrant than on a good crt. But the color reproduction
> of course is still better on crts than on most TFTs...
>
> You either can go for the FW900, or for one of the colour-compensated
> professional TFTs which are as good in color reproduction as good crts...
>
> Benjamin
>

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

boe wrote:
> I've seen some TV's that claim to be CRTs but they don't support the
> resolution or refresh - basically they are TV's with SVGA connectors.

They are CRTs... CRT stands for "cathode ray tube", which is the picture
tube. All picture tubes are CRTs whether they are monitors, TVs, or
cheesy black and white security monitors. Even the green screen displays
on ATMs are CRTs. Just a point of interest. Dunno about monitors
over 21". I'm running a 21 myself.

 

[boe]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

My bad - you are correct they are CRTs but I don't consider them monitors
because they use the TV resolution versus monitors made for PCs which
display higher resolutions.

"Me" <no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com> wrote in message
news:d2p3p2$asv5$1@news3.infoave.net...
> boe wrote:
>> I've seen some TV's that claim to be CRTs but they don't support the
>> resolution or refresh - basically they are TV's with SVGA connectors.
>
> They are CRTs... CRT stands for "cathode ray tube", which is the picture
> tube. All picture tubes are CRTs whether they are monitors, TVs, or cheesy
> black and white security monitors. Even the green screen displays on ATMs
> are CRTs. Just a point of interest. Dunno about monitors over 21". I'm
> running a 21 myself.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

> Actually, a _good_ HD CRT TV (i.e. one that is really HD and not SD with a
> scan-converter that lets it take an HD input and downconvert it to SD) is
> pretty decent--1920x1080 is not shabby. The trouble is that they cost
> about what you'd expect such a thing to cost.

True. I guess it still doesn't register with me that HD TV is actually
TV. Last time I looked there was very little broadcast in HD format and
I don't know a soul that's actually bought one of those things yet.
It'll probably be a big thing some day, but it still seems like little
more than buzzwords to me at this point... at least around here.

 

[boe]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Many HD TVs support high resolutions but don't have a decent refresh rate
and no windows drivers so they flicker and look like hell. Powerstrip helps
but only if you are willing to put the effort into testing so many
combinations until you find one that works on your TV. Some TVs are harder
than others to get right.

"Me" <no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com> wrote in message
news:d2pck6$b0d5$1@news3.infoave.net...
>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Actually, a _good_ HD CRT TV (i.e. one that is really HD and not SD with
>> a
>> scan-converter that lets it take an HD input and downconvert it to SD) is
>> pretty decent--1920x1080 is not shabby. The trouble is that they cost
>> about what you'd expect such a thing to cost.
>
> True. I guess it still doesn't register with me that HD TV is actually TV.
> Last time I looked there was very little broadcast in HD format and I
> don't know a soul that's actually bought one of those things yet. It'll
> probably be a big thing some day, but it still seems like little more than
> buzzwords to me at this point... at least around here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Me wrote:

>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Actually, a _good_ HD CRT TV (i.e. one that is really HD and not SD with
>> a scan-converter that lets it take an HD input and downconvert it to SD)
>> is
>> pretty decent--1920x1080 is not shabby. The trouble is that they cost
>> about what you'd expect such a thing to cost.
>
> True. I guess it still doesn't register with me that HD TV is actually
> TV. Last time I looked there was very little broadcast in HD format and
> I don't know a soul that's actually bought one of those things yet.
> It'll probably be a big thing some day, but it still seems like little
> more than buzzwords to me at this point... at least around here.

Just about every broadcast TV station in the US is transmitting HD as well
as SD and many network shows are recorded in HD. There's still not a lot
on cable or satellite but it's coming.

It's there if you want it.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

boe wrote:

> Many HD TVs support high resolutions but don't have a decent refresh rate

They typically have the normal TV refresh rates.

> and no windows drivers so they flicker and look like hell.

There is no such thing as a "windows driver" for a monitor unless you're
talking about the pivot stuff. There is a description file provided
sometimes, but even those are rare. I've never noticed flicker on any TV
when used to display computer output.

> Powerstrip
> helps but only if you are willing to put the effort into testing so many
> combinations until you find one that works on your TV. Some TVs are
> harder than others to get right.

Which does the same thing as the "windows driver". Yes, it takes some
effort.

> "Me" <no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com> wrote in message
> news:d2pck6$b0d5$1@news3.infoave.net...
>>
>>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, a _good_ HD CRT TV (i.e. one that is really HD and not SD with
>>> a
>>> scan-converter that lets it take an HD input and downconvert it to SD)
>>> is
>>> pretty decent--1920x1080 is not shabby. The trouble is that they cost
>>> about what you'd expect such a thing to cost.
>>
>> True. I guess it still doesn't register with me that HD TV is actually
>> TV. Last time I looked there was very little broadcast in HD format and I
>> don't know a soul that's actually bought one of those things yet. It'll
>> probably be a big thing some day, but it still seems like little more
>> than buzzwords to me at this point... at least around here.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[boe]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I believe (but could be wrong of course) that TV refresh rates are less than
half of most PC monitors which to me make the pictures appear to flicker.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d2pjt902bk1@news4.newsguy.com...
> boe wrote:
>
>> Many HD TVs support high resolutions but don't have a decent refresh rate
>
> They typically have the normal TV refresh rates.
>
>> and no windows drivers so they flicker and look like hell.
>
> There is no such thing as a "windows driver" for a monitor unless you're
> talking about the pivot stuff. There is a description file provided
> sometimes, but even those are rare. I've never noticed flicker on any TV
> when used to display computer output.
>
>> Powerstrip
>> helps but only if you are willing to put the effort into testing so many
>> combinations until you find one that works on your TV. Some TVs are
>> harder than others to get right.
>
> Which does the same thing as the "windows driver". Yes, it takes some
> effort.
>
>> "Me" <no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2pck6$b0d5$1@news3.infoave.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, a _good_ HD CRT TV (i.e. one that is really HD and not SD
>>>> with
>>>> a
>>>> scan-converter that lets it take an HD input and downconvert it to SD)
>>>> is
>>>> pretty decent--1920x1080 is not shabby. The trouble is that they cost
>>>> about what you'd expect such a thing to cost.
>>>
>>> True. I guess it still doesn't register with me that HD TV is actually
>>> TV. Last time I looked there was very little broadcast in HD format and
>>> I
>>> don't know a soul that's actually bought one of those things yet. It'll
>>> probably be a big thing some day, but it still seems like little more
>>> than buzzwords to me at this point... at least around here.
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

boe wrote:

> I believe (but could be wrong of course) that TV refresh rates are less
> than half of most PC monitors which to me make the pictures appear to
> flicker.

HDTV typically uses a 60Hz scan rate.

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d2pjt902bk1@news4.newsguy.com...
>> boe wrote:
>>
>>> Many HD TVs support high resolutions but don't have a decent refresh
>>> rate
>>
>> They typically have the normal TV refresh rates.
>>
>>> and no windows drivers so they flicker and look like hell.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "windows driver" for a monitor unless you're
>> talking about the pivot stuff. There is a description file provided
>> sometimes, but even those are rare. I've never noticed flicker on any TV
>> when used to display computer output.
>>
>>> Powerstrip
>>> helps but only if you are willing to put the effort into testing so many
>>> combinations until you find one that works on your TV. Some TVs are
>>> harder than others to get right.
>>
>> Which does the same thing as the "windows driver". Yes, it takes some
>> effort.
>>
>>> "Me" <no-address_for_spammers@no-address.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d2pck6$b0d5$1@news3.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, a _good_ HD CRT TV (i.e. one that is really HD and not SD
>>>>> with
>>>>> a
>>>>> scan-converter that lets it take an HD input and downconvert it to SD)
>>>>> is
>>>>> pretty decent--1920x1080 is not shabby. The trouble is that they cost
>>>>> about what you'd expect such a thing to cost.
>>>>
>>>> True. I guess it still doesn't register with me that HD TV is actually
>>>> TV. Last time I looked there was very little broadcast in HD format and
>>>> I
>>>> don't know a soul that's actually bought one of those things yet. It'll
>>>> probably be a big thing some day, but it still seems like little more
>>>> than buzzwords to me at this point... at least around here.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Standard TVs are 60 Hz interlaced - every other scanline is refreshed per
pass. Computer monitors are capable of 85 Hz (or more) progressive. Whether
a person can detect flicker depends on the person, the image displayed, room
lighting, etc. In a dark room I can see a difference between 85 and 100 Hz,
but that's just me.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"boe" <boe_d@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GKSdnYVbcO2Wxs3fRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> I believe (but could be wrong of course) that TV refresh rates are less
than
> half of most PC monitors which to me make the pictures appear to flicker.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

First of One wrote:

> Standard TVs are 60 Hz interlaced - every other scanline is refreshed per
> pass. Computer monitors are capable of 85 Hz (or more) progressive.
> Whether a person can detect flicker depends on the person, the image
> displayed, room lighting, etc. In a dark room I can see a difference
> between 85 and 100 Hz, but that's just me.

HDTVs are typically 60Hz progressive except at 1920x1080 where they're
typically 60Hz interlaced. I say "typically" because there are some other
timings defined by the standard that are for the most part not used.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)