This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
People did care, which is why people who played games competitively continued to use CRT monitors well into the crappy LCD days.
Heck, some people still use CRTs. There's not too much wrong with them other than being big, heavy, and not being able to display 4k or typically beeing only 4:3.
Idk if it's just me but I have pretty good hearing, so I can hear the high pitch tone CRTs make and it drives me crazy.
This only happens with TVs or very low quality monitors. The flyback transformer vibrates at a frequency of ~15.7k Hz which is audible to the human ear. However, most PC CRT monitors have a flyback transformer that vibrates at ~32k Hz, which is beyond the human hearing range. So if you are hearing the high frequency noise some CRTs make, it is most likely not coming from a PC monitor.
Its a sound thats a part of the experience, and your brain tunes it out pretty quickly after repeated exposure to it. If the TV is playing sound such as game audio or music it becomes almost undetectable. Unless there is a problem with the flyback transformer circuit, which causes the volume to be higher than its supposed to be.
There is not one crt I ever encountered that I couldn't hear. So I'm having trouble believing you information.
I could time it out most of the time, but it was always there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_transformer
Under "Operation and Usage":
In television sets, this high frequency is about 15 kilohertz (15.625 kHz for PAL, 15.734 kHz for NTSC), and vibrations from the transformer core caused by magnetostriction can often be heard as a high-pitched whine. In CRT-based computer displays, the frequency can vary over a wide range, from about 30 kHz to 150 kHz.
If you are hearing the sound, its either a TV or a very low quality monitor. Human hearing in perfect lab conditions can only go up to about 28kHz, and anything higher is not able to be heard by the human ear.
Either that or you're a mutant with super ears and the US military will definitely be looking for you to experiment on.
I’ll defend this guy: there can easily be a harmonic at half the flyback frequency that is audible. It’s lower amplitude so less loud, but I could believe someone being able to hear that.
Oh neat, thanks for the explanation! That makes sense as most of my crt exposure for the past 10 years has been classroom TVs and museum exhibits.
the solution is to be in your mid-30s
Unless you have tinnitus.
Then you're possibly going to hear it very frequently.
You beat me to the punch.
We were absolutely considering output delay and hoarding our CRT monitors.
Some of us were also initially concerned about input delay from early USB until we were shown that while it is slower that it was unnoticeable.
I bought a Sun Microsystems 24" widescreen CRT for $400 on eBay back in 2003ish? iirc. It was 100lbs and delivered on a pallet lol. There's a reason why they didn't get very big and were mostly 4:3. 1920x1200 and like 30" deep! But, they did exist!
I remember CRTs being washed out, heavy, power hungry, loud, hot, susceptible to burn-in and magnetic fields... The screen has to have a curve, so over ~16" and you get weird distortions. You needed a real heavy and sturdy desk to keep them from wobbling. Someone is romanticizing an era that no one liked. I remember the LCD adoption being very quick and near universal as far as tech advancements go.
As someone who still uses a CRT for specific uses, I feel that you're misremembering the switch over from CRT to LCD. At the time, LCD were blurry and less vibrant than CRT. Technical advancements have solved this over time.
Late model CRTs were even flat to eliminate the distortion you're describing.
I had a flat CRT. It was even heavier than a regular one.
They're under a pretty high vacuum inside, so the flat glass has to be thicker to be strong enough
Resolution took a step back as well, IIRC. The last CRT I had could do 1200 vertical pixels, but I feel like it was years before we saw greater than 768 or 1080 on flat screen displays.
Can someone please explain why CRT is 0 blur and 0 latency when it literally draws each pixel one-by-one using the electron ray running across the screen line-by-line?
The guy inside it drawing them is insanely fast at his job. That's also why they were so bulky, to fit the guy who does the drawing.
Because it is analog. There are no buffers or anything in between. Your PC sends the image data in analog throug VGA pixel by pixel. These pixels are projected instantly in the requested color on the screen.
And no motion blur because the image is not persistent. LCDs have to change their current image to the new one. The old image stays until it’s replaced. CRTs draw their image line by line and only the the last few lines are actually on screen at any time. It just happens so fast, that, to the human eye, the image looks complete. Although CRTs usually do have noticeable flicker, while LCDs usually do not.
Of course there's buffers. Once RAM got cheap enough to have a buffer to represent the whole screen, everyone did that. That was in the late 80s/early 90s.
There's some really bad misconceptions about how latency works on screens.
They don't have zero latency. It's a misconception.
The industry standard way to measure screen lag is from the middle of the screen. Let's say you have a 60Hz display and hit the mouse button to shoot the very moment it's about to draw the next frame, and the game manages to process the data before the draw starts. The beam would start to draw, and when it gets to the middle of the screen, we take our measurement. That will take 1 / 60 / 2 = 8.3ms.
Some CRTs could do 90Hz, or even higher, but those were really expensive (edit: while keeping a high resolution, anyway). Modern LCDs can do better than any of them, but it took a long time to get there.
Actually 60 Hz was too low to comfortably use a CRT. I think it started to work well at 75 Hz, better 80 or 85. Don't know if I ever had a 90 Hz one, especially at a resolution above 1280x960. But if you valued your eyes you never went down to 60.
No idea why 60 Hz on an LCD works better, though.
No idea why 60 Hz on an LCD works better, though.
Because LCD pixels are constantly lit up by a backlight. They don't start to dim in between refresh cycles. They may take some time to change from one state to another, but that is perceived as ghosting, not flickering.
On a CRT the phosporus dots are periodically lit up (or "refreshed") by an electron beam, and then start to dim afterwards. So the lower the refresh rate, the more time they have to dim in between strobes. On low refresh rates this is perceived as flickering. On higher refresh rates, the dots don't have enough time to noticably dim, so this is perceived as a more stable image. 60Hz happens to the refresh rate where this flicker effect becomes quite noticable to the human eye.
60Hz is what any NTSC TV would have had for consoles. Plenty of older computers, too. Lots of people gamed that way well into the 2000s.
Incidently, if you do the same calculation above for PAL (50Hz), you end up at 10ms, or about 2ms more lag than NTSC. Many modern LCDs can have response times <2ms (which is on top of the console's internal framerate matched to NTSC or PAL). The implication for retro consoles is that the lag difference between NTSC CRTs and modern LCDs is about the same as the difference between NTSC and PAL CRTs.
First rule at our LAN parties: You carry your own monitor.
We'd help each other out with carrying equipment and snacks and setting everything up. But that big ass bulky CRT, carry it yourself!
Not necessarily if you’re the one walking in with the DC++ server. Getting that thing up and running was suddenly priority #1 for the entire floor.
Hell, modern displays are just now starting to catch up to CRTs in the input lag and motion blur department.
It was brutal putting up with these shitty LCDs for two whole decades, especially the fact that we had to put up with 60Hz and sub-1080p resolutions, when my CRT was displaying a 1600x1200 picture at 85Hz in the 90s! It wasn't until I got a 4K 120Hz OLED with VRR and HDR couple years ago that I finally stopped missing CRTs, cause I finally felt like I had something superior.
Twenty fucking years of waiting for something to surpass the good old CRT. Unbelievable.
LCDs came in just in time for me to be attending LAN parties in uni. Got sick of lugging my CRT up the stairs once a week pretty quickly and was glad when I managed to get my hands on an LCD. I can't even remember if I noticed the downgrade, I was so thrilled with the portability.
If input lag is the only measure for you, ok. But LCDs have surpassed CRTs in pretty much every other metric at least a decade ago.
Most people didn't own a CRT capable of 1600x1200@85Hz, most were barely if any better in resolution department than your average "cube" LCDs (one which I'm currently using besides my main 32" QHD display). I have owned a gargantuan beast like that with a Trinitron tube, I could run it at 120Hz at 1024x768 and at higher resolutions without much flicker, but it had issues with the PCBs cracking, so it was replaced to a much more mediocre and smaller CRT with much lower refresh rates.
0 input lag lmao
Just goes to show many gamers do not infact know what "input" lag is. I've seen the response time a monitor adds called input lag way to many times. And that mostly doesn't in fact include the delay a (wireless) input device might add, or the GPU (with multiple frames in flight) for that matter.
CRTs perfectly demonstrate engineering versus design. All of their technical features are nearly ideal - but they're heavy as shit, turn a kilowatt straight into heat, and take an enormous footprint for a tiny window. I am typing this on a 55" display that's probably too close. My first PC had a 15" monitor that was about 19" across, and I thought the square-ass 24" TV in the living room was enormous. They only felt big because they stuck out three feet from the nearest wall!
The heavy part truly cannot be overstated. I recently got a tiny CRT, not even a cubic foot in size. It's about the same weight as my friends massive OLED TV. Of course, OLED is particularly light, but still. It's insane!
That pic reminds me of something. Anyone else remember when “flatscreen” was the cool marketing hype for monitors/TVs?
Anyone else remember when “flatscreen” was the cool marketing hype for monitors/TVs?
We got to move these refrigerators, we got to move these colour TV's.
God that shit was so dope. LAN parties are the shit.
It was a dark day for gamers when the competitive things crawled out of their sports holes.
Good'old Warcraft III