VOGONS


First post, by King_Corduroy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Basically I'm wondering which you guys consider better for retro 90's gaming, an older CRT monitor with analogue controls that is kind of fuzzy or a more modern 2000's CRT with digital controls and a much sharper picture.
Personally after encountering 2 CRT monitors from the 2000's that have different problems related to the digital controls I'm kind of wanting an older analogue controlled monitor. Basically the two monitors I have are a Samsung SyncMaster 753DF (Picture is a tad too dark, the contrast is maxed out but it still looks greyish) and the other is an Acer AF705 (which suffers the same issue the Dell Trinitrons had where it is now much too bright and the colors looks a tad over exposed even though I have brightness turned all the way down). Plus the sharpness of the Acer is sort of blah for retro gaming. It's much akin to using an LCD imho.

So what is your opinion? Which should I stick to or seek out? What brands are good and which should I avoid like the plague?

Check me out at Transcendental Airwaves on Youtube! Fast-food sucks!

Reply 1 of 31, by ahendricks18

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I have mostly analog but I also have a Syncmaster 955mb. Its got pretty good picture and its digital. But I have a good MaxTech analog monitor from 96 and its friggin epic. Sharper than my syncmaster.

Main: AMD FX 6300 six core 3.5ghz (OC 4ghz)
16gb DDR3, Nvidia Geforce GT740 4gb Gfx card, running Win7 Ultimate x64
Linux: AMD Athlon 64 4000+, 1.5GB DDR, Nvidia Quadro FX1700 running Debian Jessie 8.4.0

Reply 2 of 31, by bjt

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The problem with older monitors is that the tube is more likely to have big hours on it which translates to low brightness.

IMO aperture mask CRTs have the wrong look for DOS games, so I'd go for the freshest conventional shadow mask CRT you can find, irrespective of age. Boxed NOS is ideal.

Reply 3 of 31, by jwt27

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I like small-sized shadow masks with "terrible" (.39mm horizontal) dot pitch. Perfect for 320x200!

Last edited by jwt27 on 2014-12-07, 21:29. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 4 of 31, by CryoSID

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I have a LG 701S with digital controls and it has a pretty good picture. It doesn't look too sharp but not too "fuzzy" either.

Reply 5 of 31, by 5u3

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I use three monitors: a 24" TFT, a 19" aperture mask CRT from ~2001, and a very primitive 14" CRT from ~1992. All connected to my three retro PCs via VGA matrix (a combined switch/splitter which lets me assign any source to any screen). So, even if none of my screens is perfect, I can choose the one best suited for the task, or just use all screens simultaneously.

As bjt mentioned above, the best CRTs are the ones that haven't been used much. Also, big, high-quality aperture mask CRTs from the 2000s age a lot faster than small, crappy shadow mask monitors from the 1990s.

Reply 6 of 31, by jwt27

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I took some pictures once to compare a few shadow mask CRTs:

21" Eizo: http://i.imgur.com/WDH4mjJ.jpg
19" Philips: http://i.imgur.com/IhdVPYk.jpg
17" Philips: http://i.imgur.com/H5p1irg.jpg
14" HP/Samtron: http://i.imgur.com/UB9sn6S.jpg

Obviously the HP wins for low-res stuff (640x480 and below). Here's another pic to show it's awesomeness: http://i.imgur.com/N1CdJgf.jpg

Reply 7 of 31, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

What about 90's sharp looking CRT?

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 8 of 31, by Darkman

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I always prefer sharp displays . But obviously you can't generalise between decades and CRT quality 100%.

for instance my Apple Studio Display from 1999 (which apparently is just a rebranded Mitsubishi diamond display) , looks a fair bit nicer than the monitor I had in the early 2000s (if I remember correctly I think I switched to LCD for my main PC in 2005)

Reply 9 of 31, by PeterLI

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I always liked the smaller CRTs for just looking sharper actually. On 13" / 14" things are more condensed: on >= 17" 320X200 pixels are huge.

Reply 10 of 31, by NamelessPlayer

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I generally favor the later FD Trinitron and Diamondtron NF aperture grille sets, especially the 21" and up models...when they actually work.

Those that do work usually have some serious color balance issues, along with the G2 voltage creeping up and making black look like dark grey. Even then, better hope the color guns don't go shorting or the image goes popping, because that could mean a flyback transformer whose days are numbered. *glares at dead FW900*

The only time I might actually want an older CRT is when we're talking certain old Sony PVMs, NEC MultiSync XM29/XP29/XV29 variants or Wells-Gardner arcade monitors that can accept a 15 KHz RGB signal natively. Scanlines tend to look better on 'em, and needing a scandoubler just to get a pure signal out of an old console or most old non-PC computers (Amiga, X68000, etc.) is a pain.

I've actually got an XV29 Plus, but what keeps me from using it is that the geometry is screwed beyond what the OSD allows for adjustment and I have no idea how to correct it.

Reply 11 of 31, by 133MHz

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

For me, sharper is always better, but in 'grades' (mainly dot pitch and gun type). As NamelessPlayer said above, for 15kHz 240p video you really want a proper low definition tube, upscaling to higher resolution displays is a pain and it never looks quite right. 'Fuzzy' should be a limitation of the phosphor dot pitch and not of the electron beam focusing system.

For 200~350 line games I really like my Samsung CVL4955 VGA monitor with its horrid TV-like dot pitch and PIL gun system, things look less blocky and more 'organic', but not fuzzy as in a poorly focused display. It is capable of 640x480 but it is bordeline unusable. Some more pictures and comparison/action shots here.
rebuilt1.jpg?w=600

For 400~600 line stuff I prefer this IBM SVGA monitor which looks very sharp but isn't capable of progressive XGA resolution.
dscn0975s.jpg?w=600

Both tubes are very different and I believe they complement each other. Another thing I consider important is true monochrome displays for things like 80 column CGA composite.

Here are some more comparisons between the Samsung(PIL) and the IBM(Delta) (huge unedited pictures):
Alley Cat side-by-side (PIL on the left, Delta on the right)

Catacomb 3D on the PIL tube
Catacomb 3D on the Delta tube

Math Rescue Plus on the PIL tube
Math Rescue Plus on the Delta tube

Math Rescue Plus on the PIL tube
Math Rescue Plus on the Delta tube

http://133FSB.wordpress.com

Reply 12 of 31, by Darkman

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

the colour saturation (at least to my eyes) on that Samsung is actually quite nice on the low colour games where sharpness isn't an issue.

btw what camera are you using to film the screen? any camera Ive tried makes it look worse than it is.

Reply 13 of 31, by King_Corduroy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yeah same here, I would like to know how you guys get such nice pictures of your screens. Mine always turn out blueish and over exposed.

Check me out at Transcendental Airwaves on Youtube! Fast-food sucks!

Reply 14 of 31, by PeterLI

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Eizo and Iiyama are great as well.

Reply 15 of 31, by 133MHz

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Darkman wrote:

the colour saturation (at least to my eyes) on that Samsung is actually quite nice on the low colour games where sharpness isn't an issue.

Agreed, things like low-color shading/dithering effects look so much better, aside from the overall 'warmer' look. I quite like it. 😀

Darkman wrote:

btw what camera are you using to film the screen? any camera Ive tried makes it look worse than it is.

For the above shots I cheated a bit by borrowing my sister's DSLR (Nikon D5000), being able to set everything manually and consistently works wonders. I'm no pro photographer but with practice I've become quite good at photographing CRTs with an ordinary point-and-shoot camera, for all my pictures I use an old beat-up Coolpix L11.

Some tips:

  • Use a tripod!
  • Fiddling with the exposure control can help to get rid of refresh lines and washed out pictures. In extreme cases brightness and contrast might need to be altered.
  • Depending on the picture content ambient lighting must be adjusted. Mostly black screens (e.g. DOS) are pretty hard to get right under anything other than complete darkness, while bright screens will wash out without some ambient light to balance things out.
  • Learn the antics of your particular point-and-shoot camera and how to trick it so that its logic doesn't outsmart you, for example by displaying something you know will pick up right, holding down the shutter mid-way to lock the settings, then switching to what you really wanted to capture and taking the actual picture.

http://133FSB.wordpress.com

Reply 16 of 31, by Darkman

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

sadly the camera I have is actually pretty bad at taking photos of screens (and thats any screen CRT , LCD , LED) , to the point where the camera on my phone does a better job , albeit still highly imperfect.

these are about as good as I could get for the Apple monitor

Zak Mckracken (low res version)

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/zhmnbbs0xsnh64p/AA … v-ovv081MgxA9Ra

Wolf3D

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/xssmr2g5z2tba3e/AA … OTr85z9oEF3H9Ra

Rayman

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/4r0l0wxujyh7pf9/AA … nz7bXOS65XqWZpa

the pics sadly are a bit too bright and not sharp enough compared to the screen itself

Reply 17 of 31, by devius

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
King_Corduroy wrote:

...an older CRT monitor with analogue controls that is kind of fuzzy or a more modern 2000's CRT with digital controls and a much sharper picture.

It's possible that the picture you are seeing on that fuzzy 90's CRT isn't what it looked like when it was new. CRTs change their characteristics over time, and old ones need fine tuning from time to time to keep them looking good. I have a 2000's CRT that was fuzzy, but after opening it up and adjusting some trimmers it now has a super sharp picture. Never tried to do the same on a 90's CRT though.

Reply 18 of 31, by brostenen

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

For me, CRT's have too many problems now a days. Not only (as some describe) do some have to be fiddeled with in one or another way.
They are also really heavy, and take up a lot of space. I have gladly sacrificed the need for CRT's on this account.
Personally I go for flat screen and modern TFT's. Just because they are for me more handy.
Not that CRT's are bad in any way, there are just too many "problems" compared to modern monitor's from my point of view.

Don't eat stuff off a 15 year old never cleaned cpu cooler.
Those cakes make you sick....

My blog: http://to9xct.blogspot.dk
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/brostenen

001100 010010 011110 100001 101101 110011

Reply 19 of 31, by smeezekitty

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
brostenen wrote:
For me, CRT's have too many problems now a days. Not only (as some describe) do some have to be fiddeled with in one or another […]
Show full quote

For me, CRT's have too many problems now a days. Not only (as some describe) do some have to be fiddeled with in one or another way.
They are also really heavy, and take up a lot of space. I have gladly sacrificed the need for CRT's on this account.
Personally I go for flat screen and modern TFT's. Just because they are for me more handy.
Not that CRT's are bad in any way, there are just too many "problems" compared to modern monitor's from my point of view.

I have to agree with the size issue. I barely have enough space as it is so I really don't have the space for CRTS where LCD will do just fine.
And for me sharp is always better. Blurry hurts my eyes