7 ms·

Digital Foundry did some good videos on CRT and Gaming, how lower resolutions looked so well, and could crank up the ray tracing at lower resolution. We really

Digital Foundry did some good videos on CRT and Gaming, how lower resolutions looked so well, and could crank up the ray tracing at lower resolution. We really traded high pixel count for the CRT's blending of pixels with higher refresh. >DF Direct: CRT Displays - Was LCD A Big Mistake For Gaming? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvRyVZWuvQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvRyVZWuvQ4 >DF Direct! Modern Games Look Amazing On CRT Monitors... Yes, Better than LCD! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8BVTHxc4LM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8BVTHxc4LM

herf 6y ago
Shadow-mask CRTs were the best ever for low-res antialiased text. It looked great for the low resolutions of the time. (Even trinitron wasn't as good.) You were guaranteed a near-gaussian point in the output, and from a signal-processing POV, this makes filtering and display just really beautiful and easy to do right. For instance, you could do a totally convincing subpixel translation with no visible artifacts.
- pixelpoet 6y ago
  omg, it's the stereopsis guy! I learnt so much from your old gfxcoding articles, thanks very much for those.
emmanueloga_ 6y ago
haha so it is happening... CRTs are for gaming, in the same vein LPs are better for music, and valves are better for amps, etc, etc
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  If you care about this stuff... (and there is absolutely no reason to care, but you are making a comment, so you seem to care a little) ...the tradeoffs are really fascinating. Don't think of it as one being better. It's just a different set of tradeoffs. CRTs are objectively better at some things, and are of course also objectively worse in a lot of obvious ways. I would say that LPs and tube amps are objectively worse than their modern counterparts in every way. But the tradeoffs involved and the subjective issues are cool and sometimes do make for a better subjective experience in some ways.
  - rubatuga 6y ago
    Tube amps are amazing for distortion effects, no doubt. But for a 1-to-1 reproduction of audio signals, it's not great.
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      For sure. The even-order harmonic distortion can sound "good" though. It's not my cup of tea but I wouldn't say somebody's crazy if they prefer it! LPs are a slightly more interesting discussion IMO. Objectively inferior to Redbook audio by a mile. But, given the 30-40dB noise floor even in a "quiet" room, and the THD added by the loudspeakers, I think their real-world performance competes very very well with digital audio...
      - viler 6y ago
        A lot of the differences people ascribe to CDs vs. LPs may not be due to the medium, but to different paradigms used when mastering audio for one or the other.
- NathanielK 6y ago
  CRTs have some really nice characteristics with moving content. If you're using an LCD or OLED display now, if you quick scroll or drag a window around you'll see you can't read the text while it's moving. CRTs are different though, they strobe in a way that means motion is always clear. While film lets you hide these artifacts with clever tracking and angles, it's very obvious with interactive video games. There are tricks to fix this, but consumer display tech is quite inconsistent.
  - astrange 6y ago
    You should be able to read it on OLED, which has instant response time, especially if it's a fancier one with 120fps or black frame insertion. The issues are more likely to be with your eyes than the screen. LED has more motion blur and occasionally flickery blacklights to deal with.
    - techrat 6y ago
      At lower pixel or subpixel brightness OLED is still terribly affected by PWM strobing. Turn/move your head and you can see the on-off-on-off steps required for dimmer scenes or dark portions of a scene.
    - NathanielK 6y ago
      A perfect 120Hz OLED is still over 8ms of blur (MPRT), a crt is closer to 1.5ms MPRT. There also are almost no OLEDs the right size for PC gaming. Hopefully as VR tech becomes mainstream, display tech can improve up to the 1.5ms mark.
    - rokweom 6y ago
      The issue with modern displays (OLED and LCD) is that they are sample-and-hold, which means that a frame will remain lit for its whole duration, leading to motion blur. Even a perfectly instantenous pixel response won't fix that.
  - viler 6y ago
    Very true. A project I'm working on involves some scrolling and animation on older hardware at 60Hz. Looks absolutely smooth on the CRT, but when emulated on a modern display there's always some kind of trailing/blurring.
Bancakes 6y ago
Ah yes I remember the 1440p 144hz CRT's. Wait, no I don't. I think the best feature CRTs could provide was the purely analogue display chain in older models. Super fast "response time" and clarity.
- opencl 6y ago
  The FW900 did 1440p or 120Hz, though not both at the same time. Only 80Hz at 1440p.
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    I guess that's cool but like you said, not at the same time, so it fails.

herf 6y ago

Shadow-mask CRTs were the best ever for low-res antialiased text. It looked great for the low resolutions of the time. (Even trinitron wasn't as good.) You were guaranteed a near-gaussian point in the output, and from a signal-processing POV, this makes filtering and display just really beautiful and easy to do right. For instance, you could do a totally convincing subpixel translation with no visible artifacts.

pixelpoet 6y ago
omg, it's the stereopsis guy! I learnt so much from your old gfxcoding articles, thanks very much for those.

emmanueloga_ 6y ago

haha so it is happening... CRTs are for gaming, in the same vein LPs are better for music, and valves are better for amps, etc, etc

JohnBooty 6y ago
If you care about this stuff... (and there is absolutely no reason to care, but you are making a comment, so you seem to care a little) ...the tradeoffs are really fascinating. Don't think of it as one being better. It's just a different set of tradeoffs. CRTs are objectively better at some things, and are of course also objectively worse in a lot of obvious ways. I would say that LPs and tube amps are objectively worse than their modern counterparts in every way. But the tradeoffs involved and the subjective issues are cool and sometimes do make for a better subjective experience in some ways.
- rubatuga 6y ago
  Tube amps are amazing for distortion effects, no doubt. But for a 1-to-1 reproduction of audio signals, it's not great.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    For sure. The even-order harmonic distortion can sound "good" though. It's not my cup of tea but I wouldn't say somebody's crazy if they prefer it! LPs are a slightly more interesting discussion IMO. Objectively inferior to Redbook audio by a mile. But, given the 30-40dB noise floor even in a "quiet" room, and the THD added by the loudspeakers, I think their real-world performance competes very very well with digital audio...
    - viler 6y ago
      A lot of the differences people ascribe to CDs vs. LPs may not be due to the medium, but to different paradigms used when mastering audio for one or the other.
NathanielK 6y ago
CRTs have some really nice characteristics with moving content. If you're using an LCD or OLED display now, if you quick scroll or drag a window around you'll see you can't read the text while it's moving. CRTs are different though, they strobe in a way that means motion is always clear. While film lets you hide these artifacts with clever tracking and angles, it's very obvious with interactive video games. There are tricks to fix this, but consumer display tech is quite inconsistent.
- astrange 6y ago
  You should be able to read it on OLED, which has instant response time, especially if it's a fancier one with 120fps or black frame insertion. The issues are more likely to be with your eyes than the screen. LED has more motion blur and occasionally flickery blacklights to deal with.
  - techrat 6y ago
    At lower pixel or subpixel brightness OLED is still terribly affected by PWM strobing. Turn/move your head and you can see the on-off-on-off steps required for dimmer scenes or dark portions of a scene.
  - NathanielK 6y ago
    A perfect 120Hz OLED is still over 8ms of blur (MPRT), a crt is closer to 1.5ms MPRT. There also are almost no OLEDs the right size for PC gaming. Hopefully as VR tech becomes mainstream, display tech can improve up to the 1.5ms mark.
  - rokweom 6y ago
    The issue with modern displays (OLED and LCD) is that they are sample-and-hold, which means that a frame will remain lit for its whole duration, leading to motion blur. Even a perfectly instantenous pixel response won't fix that.
- viler 6y ago
  Very true. A project I'm working on involves some scrolling and animation on older hardware at 60Hz. Looks absolutely smooth on the CRT, but when emulated on a modern display there's always some kind of trailing/blurring.

Bancakes 6y ago

Ah yes I remember the 1440p 144hz CRT's. Wait, no I don't. I think the best feature CRTs could provide was the purely analogue display chain in older models. Super fast "response time" and clarity.

opencl 6y ago
The FW900 did 1440p or 120Hz, though not both at the same time. Only 80Hz at 1440p.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  I guess that's cool but like you said, not at the same time, so it fails.