So if modern displays especially early ones are so shit caca compared to CRTs then why did CRTs get replaced so quickly? Is it just because of size and weight? Could a modern CRT be competitive in any way?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>size and weight
Yes
>could a modern CRT be competitive
You'd have to use like a 150 degree deflection angle and it'd still weigh like 5 times more than the average LCD while somehow having to make that work
Reading a lot of old forums lately, many industry professionals stuck to using VGA crt monitors well into the LCD era. Photographers and cad modellers especially. LCD colors were known to be shit early on. Average consumers who could afford plasma went with that and then LCDs became mainstream for size and weight obviously. Back then having a flat TV on the wall was kind of mind breaking, I remember paying 3-4k for a 32 inch LCD when they first came out (it saved me reworking a wall when unfinished my basement to shove a crt in there).
Personally, I still use a crt as my secondary monitor and an HD crt tv for watching movies. They are heavy but I'm not lacking space and I just love how they look/feel/pop.
OLED will inevitably take over though, CRTs will become a novelty and eventually be impossible to find.
my old tv literally spontaneously combusted so I was pretty happy to adopt the new technology
You don't understand. The average consumer prefers something with thin bezels they can mount on the wall. They don't care about the content or how it looks, it's more about the room to them, not the TV.
The widescreen KINEMA meme happened and LCDs were easier to store and ship during a time where some mystery meat aspect ratio and resolution might end up clogging your warehouses.
Before that it was just something that could be in a cabinet with each cabinet fitting components exactly.
The issue is that consoomers have been gentrified out of having nice things and an IKEA cabinet isn't going to be able to support a 400 pound CRT.
The thin/invisible meme exists to support planned obsolescence (since the heat has to go somewhere, the components need to be smaller and they can justify dropping connectors and technology) and consoomer slop (the aforementioned cabinets made of honeycomb cardboard).
>then why did CRTs get replaced so quickly?
it took a good 20 years before lcds replaced crts, but lcds were cheaper to manufacturer, ship, and scale up in size compared to crts or basically any other superior competing technology
>scale
It blows my mind we only ever got to ~40 inches for crts. Glass under vacuum is not easy.
she's got that giant smile because her freaky jap brain is imagining either showing everyone an extreme close up of her pussy on that screen or somehow having sex with the monitor. Don't let their wholesome anime fool you, these people are into some SICK SHIT
>somehow having sex with the monitor
you say that like its a bad thing.
>40" CRT
Would.
I had one as a kid that was bigger
for most boomers and normies, they literally gave zero shits about image quality, these people watched fuzzy analog antenna pictures and were fine with it for reference. the reduction and size and weight and power savings were enough to get people to upgrade. plus it had that "cool new gadget" cachet to it as well that led to people wanting them. and then they plugged in their shitty 480i dvd players over composite to their LCD and watched their full-screen version DVDs with the tv stretching the picture. i reiterate, image quality was NEVER a concern for the majority.
well if you ask an npc they don't even value living let alone silly things like image quality
>if you ask an NPC they don't even value living
That's true. Most people legitimately seem to hate life. I love living and can't understand them.
early lcds were actually worse than crts for the same screen size and larger lcds were generally worse, this was true until 2010 at least but by that point most people had already switched
and they had terrible upscaling hardware. but again, they didn't give a shit, i would know my parents were just like that. play those 4:3 format DVDs stretched to shit all day erryday baby
I mean in terms of power consumption sorry, but I do agree, early lcds were universally awful
>i reiterate, image quality was NEVER a concern for the majority.
What a dumb take. Of course people cared. Trinitrons were a major improvement, as were 2 and 3-line comb filters. Broadcast analog TV looked good - better than compressed-to-hell 480P digital cable.
>Could a modern CRT be competitive in any way?
Only among motion enjoyers
imagine you could produce a screen for a tenth of the cost, ship it for a fiftieth, convince consumers they wanted it more, sell it for a higher price than the old product, and tack on "it's better for the environment!" And every manufacturer does the same thing. We're only now seeing prices get closer to the real cost, while improvements get trickled out each year to keep you buying overpriced monitors. I remember using 1600x1200 @75fps and thinking "low refresh rate is okay for the desktop, my PC can't play games well over 1024x768 anyway." Anon, 120-180fps was NORMAL, 20 YEARS AGO!! We got big resolution increases, but they were also more necessary because of how harsh lcds and led pixels are along with dropping PPI as a result of widescreens and larger displays. 1600x1200 on a 19in is about 105 ppi. Don't even get started on color and luminosity accuracy. Consumer garbage will always be consumer garbage
>Anon, 120-180fps was NORMAL, 20 YEARS AGO!!
Like frick it was. Most common monitors didn't even expose 120-180Hz modes even if they could refresh that fast at low resolution and even if you made your own custom settings which in and of itself was not normal in any way whatsoever your hardware still couldn't push anywhere close to 180 FPS in any game from 20 years ago, for reasons related both to limited CPU and GPU performance but also due to a lot of games not even made to run that fast.
CRTs did not die through organic means. Very few people know what really happened.
oh but you obviously do, but let me guess, you're not going to tell us
Sometime in the late 2000s, CRT factories found their yields falling until they could no longer make CRTs. It turns out CRTs cannot be made through fully mundane means. A secret order has existed for thousands of years, slowly guiding humanity from the shaddows until we reached the level of technological development required to gaze into the face of god. The sacred priests of the secret order blessed the CRT factories to make CRT production possible. However the universe desires balence, so whenever a great good exists, so too must evil. A cult most foul sprung up dedicated to the destruction of the CRT, through the blackest rituals envolving child sacrafice they created a corrupting miasma that spread across the land bewitching the minds of men, causing them to buy the early lcds that were clearly terrible. The destruction of the CRT was coming along nicely, but it was not fast enough. The evil cult launched an all out asalt upon the hidden order, slaughtering all the sacred priests and destroying the hidden temples. Without the blessings of the sacred priests CRTs could no longer be made. The entire thing was covered up by the world government.
>Is it just because of size and weight?
This makes them much more expensive to manufacture, not just to ship and move around in homes. They're also nowhere near as bright as modern OLEDs and can't even scratch a miniLED from the last couple years. They really do only have motion clarity now, and most people just don't care enough to find a fix for that, which is a sad thing because TAA and upscaling make sample and hold motion issues even worse. The best we can do with modern display and graphics technology is hope GPUs can run everything at 400Hz or more to mitigate temporal image processing and sample and hold in one swoop.
When you realize the average room (meaning not your room at 2 AM with the lights off) has a lot of light, you start to understand why the brightest, cheapest, biggest display technology wins.
>They're also nowhere near as bright as modern OLEDs
Debatable, CRT TVs could do 400 nits, maybe even more. In 2000's we saw 200-300 nit CRT monitors as well.
Consider the newest LG C3 does 200-400 nits in SDR depending on window size. It merely matches what CRTs did 20+ years ago. Current-gen OLED monitors are way dimmer than this to combat burn-in.
Now it's worth to mention that CRTs suffered from back scattering leading to dogshit contrast when blasting this kind of brightness, making them rather pointless if picture quality is everything.
You literally do not pay attention to anything. I'm convinced you can't really read, so you won't get any more explanations from me.
I don't know who you assume I am. I just pointed out that even high brightness is something we actually had with CRTs.
>why did CRTs get replaced so quickly?
I used my CRT monitor from 1996 until it blew up in 2009
lcd monitor i replaced it with sucked and died after like 3 years
The answer is that LCDs ramped up in 2006 and started flooding the market like crazy and colour picture tube manufacturers went broke in the same year.
>spend your whole childhood eyes bleeding
>zoom zoom arrives to tell you that it was better
>A tech-savvy zoomzoom explains how a moronic millenial failed to ever figure out how to increase the refresh rate all those years
You underestimate how much people value a crisp, pixel-perfect image that never needs adjustment. I'd take a slightly lower-res LCD over a higher-res CRT any day, regardless of the maximum framerate. CRT phosphors suck at close range.
and after.
Perfect raster
old leaky capacitor that was causing issues in the vertial circuit
and the fresh new capacitor
40 years without maintenance is too much even for german built electronics
A lot of people right now are seeing CRT's in rose tinted glasses and forget that not everyone was using a high end CRT back when it was the default display technology, and I feel they either forgot what working on one was like and only see it in the lens of "muh retrogames bruh". They often want to compared CRT Interlaced refresh rates to LCD's Progressive scan refresh rates as well which I feel is a little disingenuous.
Low end CRT's often had convergence issues, were dim, low resolution, and generally text rendering was never going to be 1:1 with the raster source image and is going to be fuzzy. Many "office" grade or "freebie" CRT monitors were not high refresh rate at their native or max resolutions barely pushing out 62-75hz unless you dropped the resolution especially looking at the budget 16-18" viewable monitors.
Many of the larger ( and higher resolution monitors) took considerable time to warm up to reach full brightness, contrast, and colour presentation especially the larger diamondtron/flatron/syncmaster/trinitrons : Even new many took 15+ minutes of being on to have full capabilities.
Cheaper monitors also often had pretty bad breathing effects, slower phosphors that would trail bright objects, and other wise not be quite as good as people are remembering and these all get significantly worse with age. IE go play a PacMan or Asteroids cabinet thats still got a CRT in it and you can get persistence trails
If you were an office worker that spent all day in spreadsheets, word processing, or in general non color critical work LCD's were often seen as an upgrade because of the improved text clarity and perfect raster image across the entire display area. The matte finish reduced the glare of the overhead lighting, and people were less susceptible to seeing flicker on a sample and hold display and they tend to cause less eyestrain over all for both of these reasons.
>people were less susceptible to seeing flicker on a sample and hold display
That's because sample & hold displays do not have any flicker at all, unless there's some very low frequency backlight PWM going on or something.
>why did CRTs get replaced so quickly
lcd's are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to store, and cheaper to ship
it was never about quality anon, it almost never is
Eye cancer and shitty resolution wasn't something to be fond off, zoomers who never grew with it are moronic, flat displays surpassed crt in every real metric decades ago
Because very few people actually care about the reasons why flat panels suck compared to CRTs
>why did CRTs get replaced so quickly
because males today can't lift 30" CRT TV.
>why did CRTs get replaced so quickly
because LCD was easier to make and that's what manufacturers made.
same with 4KTVs
That's what they make so that's what people buy
Same reason why workplace computer monitors are LCDs rather than OLEDs. Because they're cheap. The benefits of a CRT matter more for things like graphics and images. This might matter for AV nerds and gamers, but the vast majority of computer screens were used for simple UIs with text and whatnot. And actually LCDs are better for reading text than CRTs due to the CRTs having a softer image.
CRTs were expensive, they drew far more power, they were fragile and large and so shipping also was more expensive adding to the total cost, and the size meant there were practical limitations on how big a reasonable screen could get. Most people's monitors back then were like 15-17".
>Could a modern CRT be competitive in any way?
Absolutely.
Motion, it sits lonely at the top, where no substitute exists.
Get them while you still can.
>manufacturing difficulty and hazards
>shipping weight
>size in delivery trucks and on shelves at stores
>consumer difficulties trying to take it home
>desire for larger sets which amplify this
>industry move to widescreen 16:9 difficult to do on crts
>disposal problems and environmental impacts
>death of repairability
>dim as frick in bright rooms
it wasnt a choice for consumers, everyone else forced the market and brought in LCDs with marketing tricks and advertixing campains because CRTs were the bane of their fricking existence and the consumer trend for larger and larger sets would break them
Are we in peak crt market? Is this not a crazy asking price?
Utterly insane, yes. I think I saw one of those for sale around where I live for less than the equivalent of $150 and even that $150 doesn't look ridiculously cheap to me or anything. Like if you're a CRT fan and the monitor is in good condition it's probably worth $150 but otherwise, nah.
I paid $100 for a mint (I mean literally mint) condition ViewSonic a year ago, but it's also 20 inches and pretty rare to find them in my neck of the woods.
>Waterloo
good city. thats FAR too much.
>big radioactive electron gun that always misfires and needs recalibration
Vs
>Beautiful liquid crystal now with all colors. Automatical correction with analog signal one button press. Is already perfect when digital signal.
Paper white 21" Chad reporting in