Why was it so expensive to make a good CRT monitor?

OLED suffer from burn in, user. You can't just use them as monitors. Also CRTs have a much better motion resolution quality.

Use it all you want, it's your money. You can get decent motion clarity with whatever strobing or black frame thing they're doing on the newer models at the cost of some brightness. It's that instantaneous CRT feeling you will never get with any of the newer tech.

fukcing hell, I once had to lug a 88 pound CRT TV, 29'', through roughly 20 meters to a car and legit thought I was gonna have an anal prolapse

88 pounds is lightweight for CRTs. Try a few hundred pounds for a 40".

No shit, I've seen some CRT's that weight so much it made me question whether if the flimsy wooden racks supporting them were challenging the laws of physics.

>Why was it so expensive to make a good CRT monitor?
when you called a crt "good" it meant "flawless", the standards they were held to in regards to color reproduction were insane, only very few displays were ever considered worth of the job for advertising firms and everywhere else that needed print parity accurate colors

>You can get decent motion clarity with whatever strobing or black frame thing they're doing
you really don't, it ghosts only a slight bit less, it's still quite terrible

imagine being this old and still playing video games kek

It looks like about 7.5 ms persistence at 60 hz so it could be better. They are adding semi-official G-Sync on the 9 series LG OLEDs so the hardware has enough overhead for them to reduce the persistence time eventually in a legit manner. Maybe they will add a G-Sync menu for the Nvidia users with some more advanced settings if enough money changes hands behind the scenes.

Its essentially a mixed bag.
I.e native resolution means non native is a piece of shit, or why you need to downsample to not get shafted using a LCD
RGB phospor grids is basically one gigantic filter ala noise to increase detail. But the grid is only a detail amplifier, the electron gun itself still paints x amounts of colors on scanlines
Good contrast and black levels is still completely unattainable by consumer tech. There is OLED in high end, but some of it has sample and hold.
ULMB and black frame insertion sorta helps with motion clarity, and some really high end stuff has perfect motion clarity for ideal cases. But not for non ideal cases.

So native detail + shape filter for extra detail + contrast + persistence is a pretty good combination. This is on top of a greater RGB color space, better gradients, and better black levels.
Running some CRT filter in Retroarch is fine, but its still missing all that extra contrast.

Attached: Crt_shadowmask_versusslotmask.gif (800x600, 754K)

As an overall package CRT is still in its own category, but if you just want to see pretty pictures in your geimus the massiveness and brightness of a good OLED screen can't be understated. The contrast is even better with the screen coatings OLEDs have. You lose out when the image is actually in motion, but people are used to that and most games in 2019 slather on extra motion blur on top of that as an effect anyway.

Because making good screens is always expensive.

>but if you just want to see pretty pictures in your geimus the massiveness and brightness of a good OLED screen can't be understated.
And if the screen is incapable of displaying moving pictures due sample and hold, its fuck all once you get over the color gamut and contrast.

Attached: Blurbusters_OLED_sampleandhold.png (793x6252, 1.14M)

>the standards they were held to in regards to color reproduction were insane
There's nothing remarkable about CRT colors.

apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a415156.pdf

pg 46 you can see coverage of CIE 1976 and it has about the same color space coverage as the IPS on the ipad 3rd gen. And measurable contrast is dogshit, about 300:1, so is max brightness (30 foot-Lambert = about) 100 nits, they're about on par with LCDs from like 2008. Compare that to today's VA TVs that get 6000:1 native, or over 15000:1 with FALD. The miniLED TVs that just came out can hit over 20000:1 contrast, and OLED with actual per pixel emission is immense, although not infinite because the substrate is reflective. Not to mention LED backlit LCDs can hit over 1000 nits max brightness.

Attached: cie-1976-vs-1931-ipad-2x.png (1159x649, 184K)

Good article. I love blur busters.

BFI is a direct counter to sample and hold retard. It's a type of strobing

do they have a lot of precious metals or something?

subhumans in eastern europe are breaking them (causing an environmental disaster of course as with everything they do) to make money apparently

CRT vs OLED?
who wins?

he probably doesn't want to, but it's his job.
can't make a career change now.

Because mass production and high demand.

Depends.
What do you want? If you want amazing picture quality, choose OLED. Though, just because something has a good looking picture, it does not equal to having good colour accuracy.
There are some high refresh rate OLEDs entering the market but they are pretty expensive.
CRR offers good colour reproduction and high refresh rate but... I'd get an ultra-wide, high refresh rate IPS monitor myself, rather than a CRT. But if you want nostalgia, go with CRT.

>posts a shit CRT
Retarded zoomers.

We already had this fucking shit thread with a bunch of arguments

BFI is a half assed measure to componsate where its possible.
And it still costs some contrast and light strength, meaning you are compensating in ways which will diverge away from what a CRT can do.

I miss good colours since I ditched my CRT... And current LCD technologies all have caviets and downsides and even shitty screen flicker at low brightness.

But it wasn't old back when it was new

what about space saving? I'm thinking OLED has better picture quality overall anyways plus no burn ins right?

Burn in was a crt term. The electron beam would physically burn your desktop into the screen forever, hence screensavers

It only really affected old CRTs from prior to the 1960s. Whereas in current OLEDs it is so bad that it is refraining manufacturers from making pc monitors.

I had burn in issue in the 80s-90s using Sinclair on my tv. Oled certainly does have issues but modern tech is designed and priced to be disposable in 3 years as it will be so far behind contemporary devices

Screensavers. Holy fuck, zoomer, you've clearly never even seen a crt

There's no definitive winner. If we're only comparing picture quality OLEDs have better colors and contrast. CRTs have better motion resolution and it can look great even at a low resolution such as 1024x768.

Huh, I didn't know screensavers were used to avoid burn-in. Never used them because I thought they were silly and never had problems with burn-in.