4 ms·

Be interesting if we kept developing this tech. Where would CRT's be now?

ethagnawl 2y ago
What's interesting and possibly surprising is that the core tech didn't evolve much past the 50-60s. Sony's Trinitron were the pinnacle, prior to modern inputs and HD. The original patent expired in the mid 90s and everyone else raced to implement their version of it. So, if evolution had continued, _I think_ we'd have marginally lighter and more efficient displays with HDMI et al and the surrounding electronics and the "smart" features seen on modern screens.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Not sure about them being lighter. The vast majority of the weight of a CRT was the thick glass on the front. CRTs that claimed to be "flat" used very thick glass that was curved like a lens so that the front the viewer saw was flat. The larger the screen, the thicker the glass would need to be to keep the edges/corners from bowing. That glass was very heavy. The 32" 16x9 broadcast Sony monitor we had was extremely heavy and required two people at a minimum to carry/place it.
  - dclowd9901 2y ago
    I had a 32” 4:3 trinitron I used to use for vintage gaming and damned if that thing didn’t weigh 130 lbs.
    - ethagnawl 2y ago
      I've got a 36" in my office and it's a monstrosity. I need to vacate my office in the near future and moving it out is the part I'm least looking forward to. Granted, I was a much younger man when I moved it in but I kind of can't believe I did it by myself with only the help of a skateboard and some movers' straps. It's a wonder I didn't kill myself or the set. There's no way I'm doing that again.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        How long has it been in it's current position? I ask, as ours had spent years in the exact same spot without moving until the studio was moved into a new location. The new location was 90° from where it had been previously. During that time the unit had become aligned to the earth's magnetic field so that in the new location we had to do something specific to it to "undo" that. I wasn't around when it actually happened, but it took some serious research to get it resolved. It was something that was not unheard of, and once the right person was contacted and had the issue described he immediately asked if it had been recently moved. Sorry I can't give you the procedure, but at least you'll be aware of potential thing that can happen when you move it
        ethagnawl 2y ago
        Wow. That's not an issue I'd heard of either. How long was it there? Mine has been in its current position for about five years. I was being slightly hyperbolic about being much younger -- but it was pre-40 and pre-kids, so not too much.
        dylan604 2y ago
        It was there at least 5 years as well. We might be talking about different monitors though. This one was the flagship broadcast reference monitor not a consumer TV if that has anything to do with it.
- bitwize 2y ago
  There has been one innovation, the SED: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-... In this technology, each pixel has its own tiny electron emitter, thus the display is like a grid of tiny CRTs. It allowed for CRT-quality contrast and color reproduction but with the size and weight of an LCD system, with similar power draw if not less. But LCDs are cheaper to produce, and they just sucked all the oxygen out of the market.
maxwell 2y ago
CRTs are still in production. https://www.thomaselectronics.com https://www.thomaselectronics.com
- bitwize 2y ago
  For military applications (e.g., fighter jet HUDs and instruments) only, at considerable expense.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
uyzstvqs 2y ago
CRT could've definitely been preferred over LCD by many gamers if it was innovated on at the same pace, and for watching video as well. CRT has true blacks and very low input lag. HDR on CRT could probably be possible as well. The downside is that many others don't want to deal with the size of CRT displays, that's why this never happened. But it's not needed as OLED combines the benefits of both but better. OLED just has to go down in price...
- madspindel 2y ago
  NanoLED will most likely replace OLED in the future.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  CRTs only had 'true blacks' in darkened rooms, otherwise you'd see the phosphors which, especially on older models were more 'gray' or 'greenish' than black. They also had quite a bit of light bleed from neighbouring image areas due to reflections in the tube front which by necessity had to be thick because it had to be strong enough to a) keep its shape and b) not implode under the near vacuum in the tube.
1970-01-01 2y ago
How much more size and resolution did you want? A 4k 16:9 CRT would probably cost you $3999 today, and the weight would require you to also buy an entirely new desk.
- bdowling 2y ago
  Cheaper than an Apple Pro Display XDR ($4999 to $5999).

What's interesting and possibly surprising is that the core tech didn't evolve much past the 50-60s. Sony's Trinitron were the pinnacle, prior to modern inputs and HD. The original patent expired in the mid 90s and everyone else raced to implement their version of it. So, if evolution had continued, _I think_ we'd have marginally lighter and more efficient displays with HDMI et al and the surrounding electronics and the "smart" features seen on modern screens.

dylan604 2y ago
Not sure about them being lighter. The vast majority of the weight of a CRT was the thick glass on the front. CRTs that claimed to be "flat" used very thick glass that was curved like a lens so that the front the viewer saw was flat. The larger the screen, the thicker the glass would need to be to keep the edges/corners from bowing. That glass was very heavy. The 32" 16x9 broadcast Sony monitor we had was extremely heavy and required two people at a minimum to carry/place it.
- dclowd9901 2y ago
  I had a 32” 4:3 trinitron I used to use for vintage gaming and damned if that thing didn’t weigh 130 lbs.
  - ethagnawl 2y ago
    I've got a 36" in my office and it's a monstrosity. I need to vacate my office in the near future and moving it out is the part I'm least looking forward to. Granted, I was a much younger man when I moved it in but I kind of can't believe I did it by myself with only the help of a skateboard and some movers' straps. It's a wonder I didn't kill myself or the set. There's no way I'm doing that again.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      How long has it been in it's current position? I ask, as ours had spent years in the exact same spot without moving until the studio was moved into a new location. The new location was 90° from where it had been previously. During that time the unit had become aligned to the earth's magnetic field so that in the new location we had to do something specific to it to "undo" that. I wasn't around when it actually happened, but it took some serious research to get it resolved. It was something that was not unheard of, and once the right person was contacted and had the issue described he immediately asked if it had been recently moved. Sorry I can't give you the procedure, but at least you'll be aware of potential thing that can happen when you move it
      - ethagnawl 2y ago
        Wow. That's not an issue I'd heard of either. How long was it there? Mine has been in its current position for about five years. I was being slightly hyperbolic about being much younger -- but it was pre-40 and pre-kids, so not too much.
        dylan604 2y ago
        It was there at least 5 years as well. We might be talking about different monitors though. This one was the flagship broadcast reference monitor not a consumer TV if that has anything to do with it.
bitwize 2y ago
There has been one innovation, the SED: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-... In this technology, each pixel has its own tiny electron emitter, thus the display is like a grid of tiny CRTs. It allowed for CRT-quality contrast and color reproduction but with the size and weight of an LCD system, with similar power draw if not less. But LCDs are cheaper to produce, and they just sucked all the oxygen out of the market.

maxwell 2y ago

CRTs are still in production. https://www.thomaselectronics.com https://www.thomaselectronics.com

bitwize 2y ago
For military applications (e.g., fighter jet HUDs and instruments) only, at considerable expense.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

uyzstvqs 2y ago

CRT could've definitely been preferred over LCD by many gamers if it was innovated on at the same pace, and for watching video as well. CRT has true blacks and very low input lag. HDR on CRT could probably be possible as well. The downside is that many others don't want to deal with the size of CRT displays, that's why this never happened. But it's not needed as OLED combines the benefits of both but better. OLED just has to go down in price...

madspindel 2y ago
NanoLED will most likely replace OLED in the future.
hagbard_c 2y ago
CRTs only had 'true blacks' in darkened rooms, otherwise you'd see the phosphors which, especially on older models were more 'gray' or 'greenish' than black. They also had quite a bit of light bleed from neighbouring image areas due to reflections in the tube front which by necessity had to be thick because it had to be strong enough to a) keep its shape and b) not implode under the near vacuum in the tube.

1970-01-01 2y ago

How much more size and resolution did you want? A 4k 16:9 CRT would probably cost you $3999 today, and the weight would require you to also buy an entirely new desk.

bdowling 2y ago
Cheaper than an Apple Pro Display XDR ($4999 to $5999).