What exactly IS that "original hardware feeling" to you?

[marurun]

No modern CRT would look right for for these older games, tho. They would be too clean. If you want that inherent blur and poor color filtering, a return of CRT tech wouldn’t be designed to give you that.

[fuctfuct]

No modern CRT would look right for for these older games, tho. They would be too clean. If you want that inherent blur and poor color filtering, a return of CRT tech wouldn’t be designed to give you that.

You're probably right. Which is also my argument against PVM/BVMs.

However, if CRT does come back it will likely be exclusively for retro gaming. So it might be better than you think.




I have a feeling it will come back. I watched Alien tonight and they were using CRTs on the Nostromo. CRTs will be required for deep space travel.

[isiolia]

I often wonder how amazing a 2020 CRT would be if they had continued to be made, and evolve. Would be amazing. Imagine a 65 inch wide screen CRT? Have to do a modern day barn raising to get it into your house

Guess that would depend on if the size limits on CRTs were a practical limitation - if going past ~40" (I think the largest was 43"?) was a matter of keeping size down to something that'd fit through doors and not completely require a forklift to move...or if the technology was otherwise difficult to scale up further.

Old TVs are not shitty they are superior to lcd flat panels in many ways.
Such as input lag and motion blur.

Other than the bulk CRT technology is superior to modern displays.

It can really depend on what you want out of it, and models being compared. Consider, for instance, things like geometry, convergence, and input types that are essentially nonissues on modern displays. Plus practicality and cost for larger screens. They can be nice for specific use cases (which, granted, gaming tends to be), or show well if looking at some of the best models ever produced, but on average modern displays end up being a better experience, and they're only continuing to improve.

[msimplay]

I often wonder how amazing a 2020 CRT would be if they had continued to be made, and evolve. Would be amazing. Imagine a 65 inch wide screen CRT? Have to do a modern day barn raising to get it into your house

Guess that would depend on if the size limits on CRTs were a practical limitation - if going past ~40" (I think the largest was 43"?) was a matter of keeping size down to something that'd fit through doors and not completely require a forklift to move...or if the technology was otherwise difficult to scale up further.

Old TVs are not shitty they are superior to lcd flat panels in many ways.
Such as input lag and motion blur.

Other than the bulk CRT technology is superior to modern displays.

It can really depend on what you want out of it, and models being compared. Consider, for instance, things like geometry, convergence, and input types that are essentially nonissues on modern displays. Plus practicality and cost for larger screens. They can be nice for specific use cases (which, granted, gaming tends to be), or show well if looking at some of the best models ever produced, but on average modern displays end up being a better experience, and they're only continuing to improve.

There's only one way where modern displays are better and that is size.

But modern displays fail in everything else.
Such as input lag, black levels and they only have one resolution.

If there was a modern CRT it would beat the experience of any modern flat panel.
No need for scaling nor high refresh rates just to lower the input lag and motion blur.

As per Df retro the experience is simply amazing.

They are improving for sure but they come at a cost.
To power a high refresh rate monitor you need the technology to power it.

Technologies such as VRR, 120hz are only there to reduce input lag and motion blur.

CRT could do everything a modern flat panel display can and better.
Only the size would be the issue and yes it matters a lot because flat panels have allowed larger screens.

[Anapan]

Those ultra-slim crts were pretty cool.

[marurun]

It was an interesting DF Retro piece, but it ignores how well LCDs and OLEDs deal with very high resolution content, and modern OLEDs have excellent black levels and HDR brightness controls. For gaming, yes, CRTs have some very distinct advantages, but for more passive media consumption I don't know that CRTs can affordably, mechanically, or environmentally be manufactured to competed with OLED technology. I think we're at a point where there is simply no reason for any manufacturer to consider working with CRT tech except as a luxury, boutique item. CRTs are limited ultimately by dot pitch and cannot create "retina" level pixel densities (which are admittedly less useful for screens that are larger and further away from the user, another area where LCDs and OLEDS have an advantage).

[msimplay]

It was an interesting DF Retro piece, but it ignores how well LCDs and OLEDs deal with very high resolution content, and modern OLEDs have excellent black levels and HDR brightness controls. For gaming, yes, CRTs have some very distinct advantages, but for more passive media consumption I don't know that CRTs can affordably, mechanically, or environmentally be manufactured to competed with OLED technology. I think we're at a point where there is simply no reason for any manufacturer to consider working with CRT tech except as a luxury, boutique item. CRTs are limited ultimately by dot pitch and cannot create "retina" level pixel densities (which are admittedly less useful for screens that are larger and further away from the user, another area where LCDs and OLEDS have an advantage).

Very high resolution is only an issue because of flat panel displays in the first place I would argue that having access to any resolution not just a single native resolution is a greater advantage to gamers specifically

But you are right no manufacturer will do it now outside of a niche.

Fluid gameplay is arguably the most important thing @ the feel how how a game plays.

I am also not in agreement in HDR while it is an emerging technology it is very half baked right now HDR400 is a joke and true HDR is only really supported by very expensive displays and only really means access to the SRGB colour space.

We don't know how far CRT's could have been pushed but I'm sure if the technology continued we could have seen similar performance to LCD's with regards to quality.

But it is a major point modern displays lose performance in favour of quality but it's said that 240hz has only just reached a similar level of performance to CRT's and even then it's not perfect compared to what a CRT can do at 60hz or 75hz.

[isiolia]

CRT could do everything a modern flat panel display can and better.
Only the size would be the issue and yes it matters a lot because flat panels have allowed larger screens.

Typical downsides to CRTs get glossed over. Turn it on, 15-20 minutes later it's warmed up and blacks are actually black not dark green. Hopefully you can adjust the image to not be distorted in some way...at the given resolution and refresh, because it'll need to be readjusted if you change that. Hopefully the entire screen can be in focus, but it's not uncommon that the edges or the center will be slightly off. All sorts of tweaks - common on monitors, service menu options on TVs - that are simply irrelevant on flat panels. You aren't plugging in a monitor over a digital connection and spending a few minutes futzing with it to center/resize the image, try to get it looking as good as you can... you just plug it in, and it's pixel-perfect. Since only a minority of end users actually ever spent time to adjust their monitors (at least, from what I saw out of my users), the average experience there is better overall.

Other aspects are harder to say, since CRTs got phased out as HD was on the rise. Presumably, modern CRTs would be HD, with appropriate inputs too. Still, relevant to the "original hardware" sort of thing... most CRT TVs had more limited inputs on them. It was a different situation than we have today, where basically everything is just HDMI. Which, to me, is also a "better average experience" thing. There isn't that gap between if you bought a set (and source) with S-Video or Component versus just composite... or even only a coax jack.

A lot of that sort of thing is what I mean when I say they're a better average experience.

Some of it though, again, is really a matter of what the state of the market was when CRTs were dominant. Modern ones, if they existed, may be different, and may have seen better ones available at reasonable prices. Meanwhile, it's probably worth keeping in mind what many of the better ones originally retailed for (and what they'd cost now with inflation) versus what that'd buy in a modern display.

[marurun]

Very high resolution is only an issue because of flat panel displays in the first place I would argue that having access to any resolution not just a single native resolution is a greater advantage to gamers specifically

For gamers this might be true. I'm not sure that same argument holds for watching movies or shows. I also think that very small "retina" density displays handle resolution scaling much better than larger screens.

But you are right no manufacturer will do it now outside of a niche.

The material and environmental costs are simply too high to make CRTs worth making. They would cost far too much. Further, CRTs are horribly inconvenient screens compared to modern displays, even the lower-profile "flat" displays Samsung was selling there near the end. There isn't enough appeal to any consumer other than those who are very dedicated.

I am also not in agreement in HDR while it is an emerging technology it is very half baked right now HDR400 is a joke and true HDR is only really supported by very expensive displays and only really means access to the SRGB colour space.

We don't know how far CRT's could have been pushed but I'm sure if the technology continued we could have seen similar performance to LCD's with regards to quality.

You're right, the HDR specs are notably a bit thin. The actual effect of improved color accuracy, contrast, and black levels is real, but the standards themselves don't really sum that up.

CRT technology is very mature technology, and at the end there they were really bumping up against some physical limitations. That's not to say CRTs were a technology dead end, but part of the reason LCD and OLED tech is advancing so rapidly is that it's a younger consumer technology (I guess that's somewhat arguable). It's hard to know what coulda woulda shoulda happened with CRTs.

[msimplay]

CRT could do everything a modern flat panel display can and better.
Only the size would be the issue and yes it matters a lot because flat panels have allowed larger screens.

Typical downsides to CRTs get glossed over. Turn it on, 15-20 minutes later it's warmed up and blacks are actually black not dark green. Hopefully you can adjust the image to not be distorted in some way...at the given resolution and refresh, because it'll need to be readjusted if you change that. Hopefully the entire screen can be in focus, but it's not uncommon that the edges or the center will be slightly off. All sorts of tweaks - common on monitors, service menu options on TVs - that are simply irrelevant on flat panels. You aren't plugging in a monitor over a digital connection and spending a few minutes futzing with it to center/resize the image, try to get it looking as good as you can... you just plug it in, and it's pixel-perfect. Since only a minority of end users actually ever spent time to adjust their monitors (at least, from what I saw out of my users), the average experience there is better overall.

I think this is a per case issue as the Sony Trinitron I have has no such issues and it is an old technology.
That said my Toshiba TV I did often have to fiddle with settings depending on if I played with an NTSC game or PAL game as the picture used to shift left or right depending on the region.

Colour wise I didn't notice much in the black levels but I wasn't really looking for it either