is it?
Kheldragar wrote:
No
20XXPhilantropist wrote:
What year was it again?
That was then, today you have LightBoost technology.YayMii wrote:
Speaking of Taiko: I just remembered that I took a bunch of LCD vs CRT comparison shots almost 2 years ago that are relevant to this question.
It's been forever since I played standard mode on an LCD so I don't know really how much of an advantage it gives, but it makes scrolling modes like Taiko so much more comfortable to play (again, assuming it's set to a refresh rate that doesn't murder your eyes).
LCD=Display lag (more so with lightboost)lolcubes wrote:
That was then, today you have LightBoost technology.YayMii wrote:
Speaking of Taiko: I just remembered that I took a bunch of LCD vs CRT comparison shots almost 2 years ago that are relevant to this question.
It's been forever since I played standard mode on an LCD so I don't know really how much of an advantage it gives, but it makes scrolling modes like Taiko so much more comfortable to play (again, assuming it's set to a refresh rate that doesn't murder your eyes).
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
This isn't true at all. All monitors have display lag simply for the fact that the picture is updated in frames. Your fancy pants 60Hz CRT monitor can still have a display lag of up to 16.6ms. If I'm using an LCD with 144Hz refresh rate, I might end up having less display lag than your CRT, even after response time (which is not instant on a CRT either, which is why you can see the strobe refresh on recordings - usually around 1ms).ZenithPhantasm wrote:
LCD=Display lag (more so with lightboost)
CRT=No display lag
Yeah, of course, but 144Hz LCDs are expensive I got my trusty CRT for $40 when LightBoost was already a thing.lolcubes wrote:
That was then, today you have LightBoost technology.
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
First things first: 60Hz CRT and "fancy" do not belong in the same sentence... the CRT's strobe can cause harm to your eyes if you run at such a low refresh rate. The flicker is actually visible to the human eye when the refresh rate is that low.Philosofikal wrote:
This isn't true at all. All monitors have display lag simply for the fact that the picture is updated in frames. Your fancy pants 60Hz CRT monitor can still have a display lag of up to 16.6ms. If I'm using an LCD with 144Hz refresh rate, I might end up having less display lag than your CRT, even after response time (which is not instant on a CRT either, which is why you can see the strobe refresh on recordings - usually around 1ms).ZenithPhantasm wrote:
LCD=Display lag (more so with lightboost)
CRT=No display lag
Five dollars says that refresh rate is at 640x480 (or maaaaybe 800x600) resolutionYayMii wrote:
In fact, mine goes up to 180Hz.
Yeah, of course... but I can still go up to 140Hz at 1366x768 which is all I need for osu!.Philosofikal wrote:
Five dollars says that refresh rate is at 640x480 (or maaaaybe 800x600) resolutionYayMii wrote:
In fact, mine goes up to 180Hz.
No, I do not. The shorter the strobe time, the less the input lag, since the strobe occurs at the beginning of the frame.ZenithPhantasm wrote:
Lol you have it backwardsPhilosofikal wrote:
On my monitor, you can even adjust the duration of the strobe to decrease input lag (shorter strobe) or decrease motion blur (longer strobe)
If you can do 140Hz at 1366x768, then your CRT is utterly exceptional. It's better than the Sony FW900, from what I've read, actually. What is the model of this screen?YayMii wrote:
Yeah, of course... but I can still go up to 140Hz at 1366x768 which is all I need for osu!.
And there are still better CRTs than this one out there. But as I said, I spent only $40 on this thing, so I'm okay.
It's a Viewsonic PF815. It actually has around the same specs refresh-rate-wise and resolution-wise compared to the FW900 (both have 121kHz horizontal refresh rate, so both monitors can handle 1366x768@140Hz, but the FW900 only maxes out at 160Hz vertical compared to my 180Hz). The only thing that the FW900 has over this is a wider screen size and aspect ratio (22.5" 16:10 vs 20" 4:3), but I'm completely fine running osu! in a letterbox and playing my FPSes in 4:3 so it doesn't really bother me.Philosofikal wrote:
If you can do 140Hz at 1366x768, then your CRT is utterly exceptional. It's better than the Sony FW900, from what I've read, actually. What is the model of this screen?
The backlight is only on when the frame is completed. For the majority of the time it is off.Philosofikal wrote:
No, I do not. The shorter the strobe time, the less the input lag, since the strobe occurs at the beginning of the frame.
Your post would suggest that you believe that a strobing backlight functions like a CRT. A backlight is on, not off, for the majority of the duration.
Or rather they were correct and you were wrongPhilosofikal wrote:
When I said "strobe", I meant when the backlight is off (I realize now after reading more that it is used to refer when it is turning on, and not turning off).
It's also variable how long the strobe lasts. You can set it anywhere from 0.5ms to 5ms on my monitor. Usually, it's correct that it's off the majority of the time (the shorter it is, the less motion blur, but the screen can get very dark). It's a fixed time, however (unless you have variable refresh like Freesync) - the page on Blur Busters is technically correct, but quite misleading.
You're realizing that you're talking to RSI-Relax-chan with most topplays being a year old?Philosofikal wrote:
(and you're not because you have a hit accuracy of 90% which is pathetic)
Best lcds are around 10ms from what i can find. http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/Wikipedia wrote:
Image adjustments typically involved reshaping the signal waveform but without storage, so the image is written to the screen as fast as it is received, with only nanoseconds of delay for the signal to traverse the wiring inside the device from input to the screen.
There is input lag because for some monitors the refresh rate have to be lowered from 144hz to 120hz and the backlight is only strobed once the frame is completed which adds a few more ms. In total there's probably 5-10ms more lag with lightboost on.jaaakb wrote:
Lightboost doesn't do anything to input lag, it just reduces perceived motion blur (pixels transitioning are not easily seen, backlight is on after the image is drawn on screen - does nothing to get the image drawn faster).
Wikipedia on crt input lag:Best lcds are around 10ms from what i can find. http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/Wikipedia wrote:
Image adjustments typically involved reshaping the signal waveform but without storage, so the image is written to the screen as fast as it is received, with only nanoseconds of delay for the signal to traverse the wiring inside the device from input to the screen.
Input lag isn't such an issue in osu!, but it does make cursor feel more responsive and enjoyable to move (especially after being used to higher input lag).
colors are much better on crts than on gaming lcds (blacks, contrast, depends on crt. lcds made to have good image do compare, but aren't very good for watching fast paced stuff)Philosofikal wrote:
If you care about resolution, color, eye health, aesthetics, durability, space, or the fact they weigh a ton (I had a 36'' WEGA Trinitron in my bedroom before I moved out that weighed 250 pounds) more than gaming, then no.
I disagree. A full backlit strobe, and not a scanning strobe, is almost impossible to see flicker at 120Hz. At 60Hz, it looks bad, but at 120Hz it's basically invisible except at rare moments.jaaakb wrote:
strobe can cause eye strain just the same #:
crts are durable. how would they still be in use after being discontinued years ago?It's not the fact that they aren't durable, in fact, they are usually built very well, but all of these motitora are old and tubes, among other things, don't last forever. It's fairly convoluted and analog technogy so a lot of things can go wrong with it at any time.
You had a crt television - was it any good as a monitor?No. I only bought it for gaming - it had no computer inputs and only went up to 1080i. It was really not all that great to be honest. Maybe if it had an HDMI port it would have been better.
If it had no computer inputs or hdmi that means you were limited to RCA connectors which only outputs 480i maxPhilosofikal wrote:
No. I only bought it for gaming - it had no computer inputs and only went up to 1080i. It was really not all that great to be honest. Maybe if it had an HDMI port it would have been better.
HD CRTs had component video input and went up to 1080i...ZenithPhantasm wrote:
If it had no computer inputs or hdmi that means you were limited to RCA connectors which only outputs 480i maxPhilosofikal wrote:
No. I only bought it for gaming - it had no computer inputs and only went up to 1080i. It was really not all that great to be honest. Maybe if it had an HDMI port it would have been better.