Work at electronic salvage operation

You do know you only make them more annoying right? Less CRTs means the one's they own are more valuable/niche so they stroke their dicks harder.

I had that exact tv before

>every monitor *that has a dvi port

>every monitor *that has a dvi, and or vga port.

Unless you want to de-case one to make a MAME cabinet.

>>Work at electronic salvage operation
>>Get to help destroy CRTs on a daily basis
I work at a collection facility which sends them out to places like your work. How do you end up taking a CRT apart? How do you deal with the poisonous materials and recover the metals &c.

I don't know. I just move material around for the people who do.

>a crt tv
so nobody then.

drat, so they don't do it out in the open then? You move it onto a conveyor belt or in front of a room?

i already have a Sony PVM, i dont need more CRTs

Cool
Your smashing all the shit tier ones anyway, so who cares.

>crt tvs
congratulations, you played yourself

This. It's the monitors

>OP lives in India and moves a stick around in a pool of mercury and crude copper while breathing in toxic fumes and wont live past 31.

I already have my CRTs so fuck off

based

Attached: 1534405579080.jpg (258x360, 55K)

>OP is a garbage man

Attached: 1337315521567.jpg (630x460, 58K)

>The only worthwhile CRTs are 15kHz these days.
>Hurr the only worthwhile monitor are all the crt pc monitors including the fw900 these days, because they all could do 15khz
Fucking moron.

>Every time I see a CRT get taken apart I feel satisfaction knowing that some CRT fag will never have the chance to indulge in his autistic fetish.
And every one you destroy makes all the remaining ones just that much more valuable.
We, the investors, thank you.

hmmmm....

Looking back it just hurts, i mean input lag and color is still great.
By my vision is terrible and i just can't image coming back to this fucking piece of shit and speding 12 hours loking into it.

Whenever I see one it's always 10% nostalgia, 90% seething rage about how fucking awful they were to use for the shitty quality they produced.

Put them in pooper.

4:3 SD CRTs buzz like crazy.

16:9 HD CRTs are great and their frequency is above 20Khz so you can't hear them

dude only one model of 16:10 model exist no 16:9 20khz crts exist only 15khz 1080i TVs

John carmack used to use a 16:9 crt PC monitor, and yes it could do 15, and 20/25khz (just like every other crt PC monitor).

Two 16:10 CRT monitors existed
Sony GDMFW900
Sony GDMW900
Also is the 16:9 mentioned here I'm sure other widescreen CRTs existed. They were probably niche products.

>works at taco bell
>grabbed an image off google
>made some random statement up to get attention

Attached: 1539416786145.jpg (338x323, 79K)

they they are same model
fairly sure it was a TV model and only 1080i or actually 16:10

pc monitors didn't go 16:9 till like 2009 or some thing they where all 16:10 before that.

No they're not.

The W900 wasn't a flat screen, which is somewhat desirable.

Also had lower refresh rate, at least factory presets. There are some reports of people running them at 1920x1200 @ 85hz I think

>fairly sure it was a TV model and only 1080i or actually 16:10
It wasn't. The intergraph 28hd96 was legitimately a native 16:9 1920x1080p (not interlaced) crt PC monitor from 1995.
It's really not hard to believe that this was available during that time since CRTs like
Sony DDM
We're native 2048x2048 300hz, and they've been around since the 80's(?).

Have you ever seen a 28hd96 for sale?

You should feel better that you're helping the environment. CRTs usually aren't recycled properly and you're helping reduce hazardous waste in the world, while retaining valuable components.
t. CRT lover

Yea, but during the early 2000's. They were also getting rid of the 33" versions back then too for very cheap.

What was the maximum refresh rate at 1920x1080? I'd assume 75hz? I can't find much specs on it.

Go say that to the guys in /vr/ and they'll rip you a new one.

The FW900 is not going to do 15kHz without issues. The lowest CRT monitors tend to go is 30kHz before they start giving you signal errors.
There's a reason people run CRT monitors at 120hz when they are trying to use them as an input for a 15kHz signal.
On top of that running at 120hz causes stuttering. You either have to throw away half the screen's brightness inserting black frames, or you have to deal with it.
If you're going to own a CRT it's likely becasuse you want to play retro games, in that case you're better off getting a high quality trinitron TV that runs at 15kHz natively.

Attached: 1525132466757.jpg (600x703, 245K)

>Taking satisfaction from ruining other's hobbies.
Get help

Attached: Stalin gulag.gif (400x299, 2.36M)

>Go say that to the guys in /vr/ and they'll rip you a new one.
I don't give a shit about the fags in /vr/ though. They literally know nothing.
>75hz
Yea. That was the listed max, but you could push them a little past that to 85.

Video related. It's a solution, but it's not an ideal solution. You also need to hack a VGA cable and use custom timings on a computer. If you want to output from retro hardware for real you'll need some kind of board that converts between 30kHz and 15kHz.
youtube.com/watch?v=TGmLRuHFvRM
Not the best video, but it does show the stuttering, and he does bring up the brightness issue.

Shut up faggot.
ultimarc.com/store/section.php?xSec=11
$79 for a refurb proves you wrong asshole.

>They literally know nothing.
They're very well informed on CRT tech actually.

old leave you mongoloids are fucking too retarded to be on this board.
You're worse than audiofags.

No they are not.
See

Based.

They jack off to Sony bvms, because they don't know any better.

If you could simply hook up a 30kHz CRT and run it at 15kHz people wouldn't even bother looking for BVMs and PVMs.

Attached: 1510171417549.jpg (507x507, 32K)

This makes me happy.

Old, useless junk needs to go.

OP is autistic

>If you could simply hook up a 30kHz CRT and run it at 15kHz people wouldn't even bother looking for BVMs and PVMs.
This is exactly why those people are retarded.
Products exist just for that purpose, and they aren't even expensive.
ultimarc.com/store/section.php?xSec=11
Now treat me like your God for providing you with some enlightenment. Now you can dumpster dive for that Dell crt instead of spending a retarded amount of money for a bvm monitor.

This doesn't give you the ability to hook up consoles though. Sure it is probably a great solution if you're using a computer to emulate everything, but I actually have my old consoles which I want to use.
PS2 is a great example of something that isn't worth emulating.

Attached: 1513036991345.jpg (505x588, 61K)

>Sony DDM
fuck off what CRT is 2000x2000 at 300hz I highly doubt that.

im looking for a CRT that can do higher than 120hz at 1024x768 or some res abit higher does any actually exist?

Line doublers exist.
Pic related, LaserDisc player hooked up to my Trinitron Multiscan E220 PC-Only CRT.

Attached: IMG_20181021_134023.jpg (2560x1920, 2.07M)

>Consoles
Why do you bring your retarded non issues here?
Just emulate your garbage, and go away. It's not like the ps2 can't be ran on a crt PC monitor anyways, so your point us moot as fuck you retarded piece of shit.

>Sony DDM
It was an atc special use monitor. Last one I saw for sale sold for $12k, but people have dumpster dived for them 10+ years ago.

>im looking for a CRT that can do higher than 120hz at 1024x768 or some res abit higher does any actually exist?
I think these are pretty common res/refresh rates for PC CRTs.
Nokia 445XI PLUS = 135hz@768
Maybe try looking at Hitachi, NEC, and/or ilyama crt monitor models for higher refresh rates at a little higher resolutions.

Does it do 240p without looking like shit?

>Why do you bring your retarded non issues here?
Says the person emulating Jew games from the 80s.

>Just emulate your garbage, and go away. It's not like the ps2 can't be ran on a crt PC monitor anyways, so your point us moot as fuck you retarded piece of shit.
With an active cable. The official VGA cable was for Linux only, and most games won't support it. If that wasn't bad enough it'll also only work on sync-on-green monitors. Granted you'd ideally have a Sony monitor anyway, but that makes it less simple than picking up some shitty Dell monitor from the dump.

Don't know, my particular doubler only takes composite and S-video, and the only devices I have which output 240p are old consoles. As you will probably know the composite encoders on those are absolute trash, so I use them via RGB on a 32" 16:9 Quintrix which does internal line doubling to get 100Hz refresh rate.
480i looks pretty damn good on it, though.
Actually, let me see if I can dig out the Famicom and show you how it looks, since you're not getting more than composite out of that without serious modification.

What do you use the CRT for usually? Just fun?
My only CRT monitor is just being used for the rare cases where I need to work on my home server.

>consumer CRTs

And nothing of value was lost.

>Implying Sony wasn't using the same tubes in their PVMs as they were their consume displays.
Even the widescreen BVM monitors were just a professional repackaging of the same tubes used in consumer displays. BVMs aren't cucked by digital like the HDTV CRTs were.

>mfw zoomer
>parents were early adopters of flat televisions
>didn't grow up with CRT
feelsgood

Looks aight methinks. Not as good as on the Quintrix, but it's usable.
>"The" CRT
I have six CRTs in my room, and only one LCD. I use them with old computers because they tolerate multiple resolutions without looking like shit, unlike LCDs. Also for watching LaserDiscs using the line doubler (which can also do scaling and reverse pulldown, which is a godsend for camera pans on NTSC discs)

Attached: IMG_20181021_142830.jpg (2560x1920, 2.77M)

It just doesn't look the same as a TV designed to do 480i desu.
Pic related. It's like vinyl fagging, you have an objectively better display but I personally think this looks better.

Attached: 1523890776851.jpg (4032x3024, 3.19M)

nobody wants them though.

No problem with that. I'm not the same guy who was saying all 15KHz sets are trash. I just find the whine mildly annoying on bad sets. I was just saying you can hook up 15KHz signals to computer displays.

no way can it do 2000x2000 at 300hz

maybe at 240x240 it can do 300hz but not at that high res.

yer but I want to know if any CRT can do a refresh rate considerably higher than 120hz at that res otherwise ill ditch CRT when we get 500/1000hz LCDs. (there is already 480hz ones)

doesn't have to be way higher but if I could get a 200 or 180hz crt at 768 I would use CRT for considerably longer into the future I think.

Not that user but why wouldn't it be able to? It's probably a monochrome display as well, which could easily do 2000x2000.

but maybe 0ms of CRT still is better than a 500hz "1ms" LCD that's really 10ms... idknow.

learn how refresh rates on CRT work. it would have to have a crazy fast frequency to support 2000x2000 at 300hz I don't think they even worked out how to make them that fast at this high hz. CRT with a good internal frequency can run a high hz at low res but not high res. look it up.

A CRT at 120hz will give you a frame time of 8ms.
An LCD at 480hz will give you a frame time of 2ms.
You must wait 4 times as long for your input to register on the CRT compared to the LCD. People don't care about temporal resolution anymore, they care about input latency. If you really care about motion quality that much you can get an LCD with backlight strobing, which effectively gives CRT quality motion.

Attached: 1527263979631.png (540x486, 335K)

based

so, in other words, not a faggot

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron
>In May 1988, the high-end 20 inch DDM model (Data Display Monitor) was introduced with a maximum resolution of 2,048 by 2,048, which went on to be used in the FAA's Advanced Automation System air traffic control system.

300hz 2048x20048 Trinitron displays included 5bnc inputs, and we're capable of color.

LCD crystals physically aren't fast enough to keep up with CRTs electron guns. LCD's have an inherent latency that is way above CRTs, and even super fast high refresh tn's with strobing are not similar in clarity to CRTs with lower refresh rates.
LCDs are better with modern displayed text, and are now capable of higher resolutions, because CRTs is an abandoned technology.
Other abandoned tech that's better that current LCD/flat panels:
LRT/FED/SRT could have been superior to all, but they where abandoned for different reasons one being licencing (SRT).

Most 480Hz LCDs are just 120Hz panels with a 480Hz strobe light.
It looks marginally better but the actual refresh rate isn't higher.

LCDs can update an image faster than your perception can keep up. You may notice the blurring this causes, but you cannot possibly react to it.
CRTs have zero input latency, but because it'll be 120hz at best that means the fastest you can possibly respond to a frame is 8ms. Someone with a 240hz monitor would have twice as many chances to register an input as you would. Someone with 480hz would have 4 times as many. It doesn't matter if the LCD is blurry while it does this, what matters is that your computer is outputting 240/480 frames, which gives you more frames to react and respond than you would otherwise.

Just fuck off. You literally don't know what you are talking about.

It's not a hard concept to understand. The more frames you have the faster you can respond. This is fact. If you're arguing against this then you should probably take your own advice.

I'm from /vr/.
/CRT/ general too.
I can honestly say I feel nothing to OPs topic.
I'm just here because it looked like a good bait thread and I wanted to see autists arguing.

And the thing about CRTs is that the image is being drawn constantly.
A frame doesn't need to be fully built by the GPU and fully uploaded to the display before displaying. The actual time between frames on a CRT is taken up by the electron beam moving diagonally from the bottom right corner to the top left. After that, the frame is drawn as it flows in.
The tube doesn't wait for a frame ever.

CRTs weren't abandoned, they were perfected. The tubes got to a point where manufacturing was too expensive and the earth's magnetic field could fuck with the image, needing a recalibration if you rotated one.
By that time the tech was already a century old. Being an analog display device is its last advantage, and the only reason to get one now is for personal, subjective taste.

>GDM-FW900
That monitor has given me lots of happy years. Image is still better than 99.9% of LCDs.
Too bad it was 120lbs.

You're right. I'm applying sample and hold measures of input latency to a situation where you don't necessarily need to wait for entire frames to be rendered, so I'm not entirely correct. Even taking that into account though, an LCD can still update fast enough that you will see 240/480 distinct frames. They may not be as sharp as if a CRT drew them, but you will still see more than you possibly can on a 120hz, even without v-sync.
Zero input lag stops mattering when you have half the framerate of the competition. Any 240/480hz LCD is going to have low enough input lag that it shouldn't close the gap.

Who hurt our feelings op? CRTs are just comfy.

So retarded, it hurts.

Attached: ⚠️ CRITICAL ERROR ⚠️ INVERSE MASS LIMIT EXCEDED.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>have a shit job
>your only comfort is imagine someone else suffering for a retard fetish

Attached: images(5).jpg (490x586, 13K)

>because it'll be 120hz at best that means the fastest you can possibly respond to a frame is 8ms
This is only true if the software processes input at a rate locked to the display refresh rate. The real limit on how fast one can respond depends on the point at which a change to what's meant to be displayed happens in the software. If it happens right after a new (display) frame has started scanning it could be up to the full 8 ms but if it happens right before a new frame it can be close to 0. So all else being equal with a faster screen refresh the average and maximum software-to-display latency will be lower but the absolute lowest possible latency is the same.

All things aren't equal though, tftcentral measured around 3 ms of signal processing lag on the 240 Hz displays they've tested. A 4 ms frame-time with a 2 ms constant delay will have ~4 ms average latency which is the same as an 8 ms frame-time with 0 constant delay. You could take this even further still since the original idea of reacting to something on the display depends also on where it is on the image since display scanout isn't instant and can be accelerated or slowed down (reduced blanking) in some cases.