We still have a large toshiba CRT as our primary tv. I always use composite cables for the old Nintendos but use component cables for hooking up a computer to watch something modern. It also has S video but I've never used it.
An old video game just looks and feels right on a CRT in a way that it doesn't on a modern hd tv, to me at least. That doesn't necessarily mean it looks "better", however you might define it.
It's like listening to a record. Records are lower quality than CDs or other digital options due to limitations of the analog technology, but they can still be a real joy to listen to on an older stereo system. There is a certain warmth, a little bit of crackle or pop, maybe a different dynamic range and other things that make a record sometimes more enjoyable, even though the "quality" is technically far lower.
A couple other random things about CRTs: there are so many that are 4:3 or standard aspect ratio instead of the widescreen that dominates today. Watching something 4:3 that fills the whole screen (without the black letterboxing of a widescreen) feels so good and makes me miss the aspect ratio. On the flip side, I also want to find one of the HD CRTs that is widescreen to run some of my more modern devices through.
The most interesting part of the article is the difference between different connection types/signals and the discussion around artistic intent and how the artwork is supposed to be viewed.
Also, with 4K+ high refresh displays we are getting closer and closer to emulate the look of CRTs!
I don’t know. I grew up on CRTs and have never missed them one bit. I have to disagree with the idea that CRT images were somehow better overall. A high-DPI LCD or OLED screen with decent color range runs circles around any CRT, IMO.
People also forget that most video game CRTs ran at a headache-inducing 60hz, which had an unpleasant strobe effect.
I remember back in the 90s, when I was REALLY young, having a computer in my room that I figure was basically my dad's old hand-me-down computer, with a few basic toy programs like Kid Pix and the like. The CRT was a bit of a mess, and would occasionally 'go yellow' and need to be degaussed and otherwise fiddled with to get the color tone back to normal.
I can definitely appreciate the draw of the old monitors, and I wouldn't mind owning a few myself for when I get the fancy, but it feels like a very 'vinyl' sort of impulse. There are certainly attractive factors, but I think in the pursuit of those people are willing to overlook the inherent flaws. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's an interesting quirk of psychology.
I think LCD/OLED is definitely an improvement, though I've never been a fan of the 'softness' in comparison to the rigidity of the glass CRT screen. It's always seemed fragile to me.
A good CRT makes a better image than any LCD screen I've ever seen. There are plenty of caveats: an aperture-grille CRT will look better when ambient light is high, but will wear out a lot faster than a shadow-mask. My last CRT monitor could handle 1600x1200@75Hz and the IPS panel I replaced it with was a huge downgrade in image quality.
The IPS panel was cheaper (19" vs 27" diagonal), larger, lighter and widescreen (both were 1200 vertical lines).
We still have a large toshiba CRT as our primary tv. I always use composite cables for the old Nintendos but use component cables for hooking up a computer to watch something modern. It also has S video but I've never used it.
An old video game just looks and feels right on a CRT in a way that it doesn't on a modern hd tv, to me at least. That doesn't necessarily mean it looks "better", however you might define it.
It's like listening to a record. Records are lower quality than CDs or other digital options due to limitations of the analog technology, but they can still be a real joy to listen to on an older stereo system. There is a certain warmth, a little bit of crackle or pop, maybe a different dynamic range and other things that make a record sometimes more enjoyable, even though the "quality" is technically far lower.
A couple other random things about CRTs: there are so many that are 4:3 or standard aspect ratio instead of the widescreen that dominates today. Watching something 4:3 that fills the whole screen (without the black letterboxing of a widescreen) feels so good and makes me miss the aspect ratio. On the flip side, I also want to find one of the HD CRTs that is widescreen to run some of my more modern devices through.
The most interesting part of the article is the difference between different connection types/signals and the discussion around artistic intent and how the artwork is supposed to be viewed.
Also, with 4K+ high refresh displays we are getting closer and closer to emulate the look of CRTs!
I still have two CRT displays and it's a joy to use them when playing an old game or typing something up.
It is insane how much space they take up. Landfills must be full of these huge things.
I don’t know. I grew up on CRTs and have never missed them one bit. I have to disagree with the idea that CRT images were somehow better overall. A high-DPI LCD or OLED screen with decent color range runs circles around any CRT, IMO.
People also forget that most video game CRTs ran at a headache-inducing 60hz, which had an unpleasant strobe effect.
I remember back in the 90s, when I was REALLY young, having a computer in my room that I figure was basically my dad's old hand-me-down computer, with a few basic toy programs like Kid Pix and the like. The CRT was a bit of a mess, and would occasionally 'go yellow' and need to be degaussed and otherwise fiddled with to get the color tone back to normal.
I can definitely appreciate the draw of the old monitors, and I wouldn't mind owning a few myself for when I get the fancy, but it feels like a very 'vinyl' sort of impulse. There are certainly attractive factors, but I think in the pursuit of those people are willing to overlook the inherent flaws. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's an interesting quirk of psychology.
I think LCD/OLED is definitely an improvement, though I've never been a fan of the 'softness' in comparison to the rigidity of the glass CRT screen. It's always seemed fragile to me.
A good CRT makes a better image than any LCD screen I've ever seen. There are plenty of caveats: an aperture-grille CRT will look better when ambient light is high, but will wear out a lot faster than a shadow-mask. My last CRT monitor could handle 1600x1200@75Hz and the IPS panel I replaced it with was a huge downgrade in image quality.
The IPS panel was cheaper (19" vs 27" diagonal), larger, lighter and widescreen (both were 1200 vertical lines).