4 ms·

Why is no one manufacturing CRTs in 2026? Seriously this is such a lost art.

Unai 13d ago
Seems obvious that it would be incredibly expensive to do for something very few would buy. Let's say you manage to build a product you could sell as a niche expensive thing and not as a super duper expensive rich-people-only thing; you would still be competing against people buying an old CRT for 20 bucks or just using shaders for free (which gets you 99% there on an HDR 4k TV and takes 0% space in your house). Another advantage of shaders is that you can make them look exactly how you want, down to particular CRT models, screen curvatures, analog signal aberrations, etc. And almost everything you could want comes already included on RetroArch by default, with lots of presents if you don't want to mess with that stuff yourself. Hard to compete with that. A CRT TV comes with only one look. But again, working with the TV you already own instead of occupying a cubic meter of your house is probably the biggest advantage. I play retro games almost exclusively and I would never get a CRT myself, not even if it was free.
- Unai 12d ago
  *presets
- mrob 12d ago
  >or just using shaders for free (which gets you 99% there on an HDR 4k It gets you about 90% of the image quality and 0% of the motion quality. Simulating CRT motion quality on a sample-and-hold display requires around 1000Hz refresh rate.
  - Unai 12d ago
    Well, seems like we're getting there in terms of refresh rate, if not there already, so still easier and cheaper than making new CRTs.
numpad0 13d ago
CRTs emit gamma ray at high power(>5kV is usually the quoted figure), and the standard solution was a bandaid fix of attaching leaded gamma ray blocking glass onto the screen. This high lead glass cannot be recycled, and the EU(rightfully) don't like any of that. I don't know if manufacturing of CRTs are banned or legally infeasible, but it's clearly not encouraged. There are still some types of CRT-related vacuum tubes in production for applications digital equivalents are objectively less performant in.
- agalunar 13d ago
  X-rays! not gamma rays.
- duskwuff 13d ago
  > There are still some types of CRT-related vacuum tubes in production for applications digital equivalents are objectively less performant in. Like what? The only significant applications I'm aware of for vacuum tubes nowadays are high-power RF amplifiers (including household microwave magnetrons) and intentional X-ray emitters.
  - numpad0 12d ago
    Night vision goggles. The photodiode + CsO + lead coated charged glass capillary amp thing is apparently still superior to solid state image sensors with amplifiers in metrics like SNR, minimum luminosity, and longer wave IR response. The performance gap is wide enough that there's a Chinese Norinco subsidiary that entered the market during 2010s by licensing technology from an EU company.
  - protocolture 12d ago
    You can get these tiny 3 inch black and white CRTs from china. They arent really good for anything but writing hackaday articles tho.
- mrob 12d ago
  Leaded glass was a cost-cutting measure, used only for the back and sides of CRT. Leaded glass gradually turns brown under X-ray exposure, so the front screen used barium and strontium instead. There's no reason the whole CRT couldn't use this kind of glass. There are probably other heavy elements that would work too. (Early black-and-white CRTs running at lower voltage did use leaded glass for the front too, but they aren't the CRTs people interested in old games care about.)
phkahler 13d ago
First weight. Then resolution. I think SoTA for CRTs peaked at early HD resolution 720. One might be able to modulate the beam faster now. Size. And safety - anyone starting up production now would have to solve the safety issues from scratch. Nothing like a few cubic feet of vacuum imploding to ruin your day.
- cwillu 12d ago
  CRT monitors up to 1600×1200 were available and 1280×1024 was very common.
  - opan 12d ago
    I used to have a ViewSonic PC CRT that went up to 2048x1536. Sadly my family didn't realize the worth and tossed it out along with a bunch of other CRTs many years ago. In hindsight we should've tested them all and kept the nicest ones.
- lstodd 12d ago
  I sat before a second-hand 20" 1280x1024 monitor in 2001. And it was old (as in >5 years) at that point. then there was Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514 with 140-ish kHz horisontal scan
- PowerElectronix 12d ago
  Resolutions were very high for the time, I have a 2002 LG f900p (pretty high end, yes but it wasn't super expensive even back in the day) running at 1920*1200@85hz and it's a delight to work and play on it. IMO, the only factor that kills the crt vs a moderm monitor is the size and weight. I imagine resolution would be limited by how small the dot pitch can actually be made to be with modern processes but with the advances in magnets and power electronics devices I imagine going at MHz horizontal frequency would be not that hard.
rsoto2 12d ago
bet they are in China
PowerElectronix 12d ago
Consumers at large don't like them. In the same desk or table you have a crt monitor or tv, you can have a muuuuch bigger flat screen with higher resolution that weighs a tenth as much.
bob1029 12d ago
I think plasma displays are a much better option. We really should bring them back. The latest generation of plasma TVs drove their active elements at frequencies in excess of 600hz. You could do a lot of clever things with these panels. They are basically digital CRTs. A plasma TV in a pitch black room set to its maximum output power is still the most incredible experience I've ever had outside of a commercial venue. Self emission is the real magic trick. Not the pattern with which we scan.
- mrob 12d ago
  As far as I know, all plasma screens use pulse width modulation to control the brightness of each subpixel. This produces even worse motion quality than a typical LCD; you get both sample-and-hold blur from the high persistence, and phantom array effect artifacts from the PWM. IMO, plasma displays are only suitable for watching movies, which have terrible motion quality anyway because of the low 24 fps frame rate.
  - bob1029 12d ago
    I agree the response time is not fantastic, but if we are going for the effect of CRTs, it's not that far off the mark. Certainly higher latency than CRT and (properly driven) LCD.
Ekaros 12d ago
No demand. There is some imaginary demand but I doubt it will realise. And on other side LCD screens are very cheap. 74,25€ for 24" IPS. With 25,5% of that being tax... There is no way CRTs with current volumes would be anywhere close.
ChrisRR 12d ago
Because it would be incredibly expensive for such small production runs (not to mention the cost of shipping)

Unai 13d ago

Seems obvious that it would be incredibly expensive to do for something very few would buy. Let's say you manage to build a product you could sell as a niche expensive thing and not as a super duper expensive rich-people-only thing; you would still be competing against people buying an old CRT for 20 bucks or just using shaders for free (which gets you 99% there on an HDR 4k TV and takes 0% space in your house). Another advantage of shaders is that you can make them look exactly how you want, down to particular CRT models, screen curvatures, analog signal aberrations, etc. And almost everything you could want comes already included on RetroArch by default, with lots of presents if you don't want to mess with that stuff yourself. Hard to compete with that. A CRT TV comes with only one look. But again, working with the TV you already own instead of occupying a cubic meter of your house is probably the biggest advantage. I play retro games almost exclusively and I would never get a CRT myself, not even if it was free.

Unai 12d ago
*presets
mrob 12d ago
>or just using shaders for free (which gets you 99% there on an HDR 4k It gets you about 90% of the image quality and 0% of the motion quality. Simulating CRT motion quality on a sample-and-hold display requires around 1000Hz refresh rate.
- Unai 12d ago
  Well, seems like we're getting there in terms of refresh rate, if not there already, so still easier and cheaper than making new CRTs.

numpad0 13d ago

CRTs emit gamma ray at high power(>5kV is usually the quoted figure), and the standard solution was a bandaid fix of attaching leaded gamma ray blocking glass onto the screen. This high lead glass cannot be recycled, and the EU(rightfully) don't like any of that. I don't know if manufacturing of CRTs are banned or legally infeasible, but it's clearly not encouraged. There are still some types of CRT-related vacuum tubes in production for applications digital equivalents are objectively less performant in.

agalunar 13d ago
X-rays! not gamma rays.
duskwuff 13d ago
> There are still some types of CRT-related vacuum tubes in production for applications digital equivalents are objectively less performant in. Like what? The only significant applications I'm aware of for vacuum tubes nowadays are high-power RF amplifiers (including household microwave magnetrons) and intentional X-ray emitters.
- numpad0 12d ago
  Night vision goggles. The photodiode + CsO + lead coated charged glass capillary amp thing is apparently still superior to solid state image sensors with amplifiers in metrics like SNR, minimum luminosity, and longer wave IR response. The performance gap is wide enough that there's a Chinese Norinco subsidiary that entered the market during 2010s by licensing technology from an EU company.
- protocolture 12d ago
  You can get these tiny 3 inch black and white CRTs from china. They arent really good for anything but writing hackaday articles tho.
mrob 12d ago
Leaded glass was a cost-cutting measure, used only for the back and sides of CRT. Leaded glass gradually turns brown under X-ray exposure, so the front screen used barium and strontium instead. There's no reason the whole CRT couldn't use this kind of glass. There are probably other heavy elements that would work too. (Early black-and-white CRTs running at lower voltage did use leaded glass for the front too, but they aren't the CRTs people interested in old games care about.)

phkahler 13d ago

First weight. Then resolution. I think SoTA for CRTs peaked at early HD resolution 720. One might be able to modulate the beam faster now. Size. And safety - anyone starting up production now would have to solve the safety issues from scratch. Nothing like a few cubic feet of vacuum imploding to ruin your day.

cwillu 12d ago
CRT monitors up to 1600×1200 were available and 1280×1024 was very common.
- opan 12d ago
  I used to have a ViewSonic PC CRT that went up to 2048x1536. Sadly my family didn't realize the worth and tossed it out along with a bunch of other CRTs many years ago. In hindsight we should've tested them all and kept the nicest ones.
lstodd 12d ago
I sat before a second-hand 20" 1280x1024 monitor in 2001. And it was old (as in >5 years) at that point. then there was Iiyama Vision Master Pro 514 with 140-ish kHz horisontal scan
PowerElectronix 12d ago
Resolutions were very high for the time, I have a 2002 LG f900p (pretty high end, yes but it wasn't super expensive even back in the day) running at 1920*1200@85hz and it's a delight to work and play on it. IMO, the only factor that kills the crt vs a moderm monitor is the size and weight. I imagine resolution would be limited by how small the dot pitch can actually be made to be with modern processes but with the advances in magnets and power electronics devices I imagine going at MHz horizontal frequency would be not that hard.

rsoto2 12d ago

bet they are in China

PowerElectronix 12d ago

Consumers at large don't like them. In the same desk or table you have a crt monitor or tv, you can have a muuuuch bigger flat screen with higher resolution that weighs a tenth as much.

bob1029 12d ago

I think plasma displays are a much better option. We really should bring them back. The latest generation of plasma TVs drove their active elements at frequencies in excess of 600hz. You could do a lot of clever things with these panels. They are basically digital CRTs. A plasma TV in a pitch black room set to its maximum output power is still the most incredible experience I've ever had outside of a commercial venue. Self emission is the real magic trick. Not the pattern with which we scan.

mrob 12d ago
As far as I know, all plasma screens use pulse width modulation to control the brightness of each subpixel. This produces even worse motion quality than a typical LCD; you get both sample-and-hold blur from the high persistence, and phantom array effect artifacts from the PWM. IMO, plasma displays are only suitable for watching movies, which have terrible motion quality anyway because of the low 24 fps frame rate.
- bob1029 12d ago
  I agree the response time is not fantastic, but if we are going for the effect of CRTs, it's not that far off the mark. Certainly higher latency than CRT and (properly driven) LCD.

Ekaros 12d ago

No demand. There is some imaginary demand but I doubt it will realise. And on other side LCD screens are very cheap. 74,25€ for 24" IPS. With 25,5% of that being tax... There is no way CRTs with current volumes would be anywhere close.

ChrisRR 12d ago

Because it would be incredibly expensive for such small production runs (not to mention the cost of shipping)