• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Multiple sharp resolutions on a LCD-screen ?

The problem will be solved when the pixel densitet is so high that the best eye in the world cant see it
I reckon that'll take a 16K display, which I reckon is a good 10-15 years away.
 
Flat screen CRTs in future ?
Will CRTs ever come back as flat screen technology ?
So they can show all kinds of resolutions sharp and full screen ?

No. It has no priority at all because pixel density becomes less relevant as viewing distance increases. There is a point where you can no longer discern pixels and for moving images, this becomes even harder. Its simply not interesting to push for this (even regardless of CRT being dead as can be) because it is much easier to alter the content so it scales perfectly on every resolution. You already see this on websites that employ 'responsive design'. So the only realistic use case for this is retro gaming... its easy to see that is not ever going to be a market significant enough to waste new R&D on.
 
By the way , with LCD the resolution in motion drops significantly. You never really see the native resolution effectively anyway.
 
By the way , with LCD the resolution in motion drops significantly. You never really see the native resolution effectively anyway.
I should think that's a limitation of the moving content rather than the display technology's.
 
Maybe find a fancy old crt. If you look you will find.
 
Will CRTs ever come back as flat screen technology ?
First, they did have flat screen CRTs. In fact, in the end, virtually all CRTs "screens" were flat. But the monitors themselves where not "flat panels" because the "guns" have to be set back away from the inner surface so the distance the light from the guns has to travel, and the intensity of the beam hitting the screen are about the same whether hitting the center of the screen or the corners. So CRT monitors are nearly as deep as they are tall.

It should be noted that CRT monitors are like vinyl records. They are analog - not digital - and the actual image quality, like the sound of analog vinyl, is still preferred by many. I note there is a reemergence of vinyl lately which I for one, am happy about.

They can certainly make a super high resolution and fast (sorta) CRT monitor. But I don't think CRTs will return. Remember, CRT stands for "cathode ray tube". And the problem with electron (or vacuum) tubes is they are very heavy, HUGE, require a lot of energy and are still very energy inefficient (they emit a lot of heat - which is wasted energy).

The larger the screen on a CRT, the thicker and stronger the glass "envelope" of the tube must be to support the necessary vacuum pressures inside (actually the pressures are pushing in from the outside). That's why the biggest CRT screen made for consumers was just 45 inches and it weighed over 500 pounds! The required depth meant the cabinet would not fit through many standard doorways in many homes!

Plus, they are dangerous. If the CRT monitor's tube breaks, the vacuum creates a huge implosion. All the glass shards go crashing into the center, then are expelled out in many directions. While this happening is actually much less common than stories led us to believe, it did happen. So not good. Also, there are many 1000s (20,000 to 25,000!) of volts applied to the anode of the CRT. Getting your hands on that will certainly get your attention. While stories of death were pretty exaggerated too, it did happen - though it was probably with someone who already had a bad heart, or perhaps a pacemaker. More likely is the recoil action caused the person's arm to slam into the wall, breaking or cutting their arm.

I said "sorta" when it came to being fast. LCD displays have pixels made up of transistor/diodes that are turned on, then turned off as need. This ability to turn them off is critical.

CRTs use red, green and blue light guns to "light up" the phosphors in each pixel. Those pixels are NOT turned off, they simply fade (decay) and stop glowing. While they decay quick, it still takes time. To maintain a color, the guns "refresh" the phosphors (light them up again). But that decay rate is much slower on a CRT than a LCD's ability to turn off a pixel. That's a problem with fast moving objects on the screen - especially with games.

So, no. CRTs will never come back.
 
I still regret giving away a samsung 16:9 crt tv. It even had DVI.

It was to big though.. gave it to charity sale.
 
Does anyone remember Sony Trinitron flat screen 36" 1080p crt TV's...
They weighed about 225lbs... LoL
Great unmatched picture to this day at 1080p...
 
Does anyone remember Sony Trinitron flat screen 36" 1080p crt TV's...
They weighed about 225lbs... LoL
Great unmatched picture to this day at 1080p...
Does anyone remember how hard it was to get the geometry right on a CRT? And then you had to make sure R, G and B all fire in the same spot, all over the screen. That was impossible in nearly every case.
 
Does anyone remember how hard it was to get the geometry right on a CRT? And then you had to make sure R, G and B all fire in the same spot, all over the screen. That was impossible in nearly every case.
Never experienced either of those problems.

If your guns did not perfectly align, it sounds like that monitor was subjected to some rough handling, or it left the factory without any quality control checks.
 
Does anyone remember how hard it was to get the geometry right on a CRT? And then you had to make sure R, G and B all fire in the same spot, all over the screen. That was impossible in nearly every case.
While I never had that happen one of my friends did and he had to have 3 service calls to get it fixed right...
What @Bill_Bright said is exactly what happened during delivery...
After the third time it was fixed for about 8 years though.
 
Never experienced either of those problems.

If your guns did not perfectly align, it sounds like that monitor was subjected to some rough handling, or it left the factory without any quality control checks.
While I never had that happen one of my friends did and he had to have 3 service calls to get it fixed right...
What @Bill_Bright said is exactly what happened during delivery...
After the third time it was fixed for about 8 years though.
Well, chalk one up for selective memory then:
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=13113188
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/64-di...576294-help-monitor-geometry-calibration.html
https://www.repairfaq.org/samnew/tvfaq/tvcrtcona.htm
https://www.repairfaq.org/samnew/tvfaq/tvcrtpca.htm

Seriously, we didn't leave CRTs behind because of their strengths. We left themn behind because of their weaknesses. Were they better in some aspects than the best LCDs and OLEDs today? Absolutely. But overall, they were inferior. Raise your hand if you'd love a 32" 4k LCD on your desk today. Even a short tube one.
 
Well, chalk one up for selective memory then:
Selective memory? Huh? A 15 year old forum thread does not suggest anything. I simply said I did not experience those problems. That does not mean they did not exist.
 
Selective memory? Huh? A 15 year old forum thread does not suggest anything. I simply said I did not experience those problems. That does not mean they did not exist.
They existed and you experienced them. You might have not noticed them, but they were there.
The reason I'm so sure is that I have owned several CRT monitors myself. And all of them looked rather poorly when first firing up calibration software. Oh, and then there was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degaussing#Monitors
 
No, you are assuming all CRT monitors and TVs were way out of alignment right out of the box. That was not the case.

And note I used to repair TVs back in the day - okay, way back in the day, and still have my degaussing coil in a box somewhere. The degaussing problem is something totally different than geometry and gun alignments. And degaussing was rarely needed on later model CRT screens as they all had built-in and automatic degaussing coils built into the housings - just as that article notes. The built in coils weren't very powerful but because degaussing occurred every time the set was powered up, a low power degausser was all that was needed to keep the unwanted magnetic fields at bay.

And to be clear, when I said I never experienced those problems, I was referring to your comment when you said it was "hard to get the geometry right" and that it "was impossible in nearly every case" to properly align the RGB guns.

I found it neither hard or impossible.
 
No, you are assuming all CRT monitors and TVs were way out of alignment right out of the box. That was not the case.

And note I used to repair TVs back in the day - okay, way back in the day, and still have my degaussing coil in a box somewhere. The degaussing problem is something totally different than geometry and gun alignments. And degaussing was rarely needed on later model CRT screens as they all had built-in and automatic degaussing coils built into the housings - just as that article notes. The built in coils weren't very powerful but because degaussing occurred every time the set was powered up, a low power degausser was all that was needed to keep the unwanted magnetic fields at bay.

And to be clear, when I said I never experienced those problems, I was referring to your comment when you said it was "hard to get the geometry right" and that it "was impossible in nearly every case" to properly align the RGB guns.

I found it neither hard or impossible.
The reason I say it was hard is that there were no tools to assist you with that job. Convergence you could probably nail if you were lucky. But geometry you could only set based on what your eye were telling you. I wasn't doing any photo related work back then, but I imagine professionals weren't too thrilled.

Anyway, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point is, CRTs were left behind because they sucked in too many aspects. Sure, colors would pop more and refresh times were something LCDs today still can't match. But at the same time they were bulky, power hogs, came without the perfect geometry of LCDs and because there wasn't actually an screen-wide image they made your eyes bleed if used for extended periods (later models were better as they could sweep the screen much faster).
So yes, they had their pros, but let's not let nostalgia turn this into another "who killed the EV" conspiracy theory.
 
Interesting observation though, Windows 10 Spring Update seems to have improved scaling algorithms, because image on laptop at 125% scale now looks way better than it did at 1920x1080. It's almost at a point it's hard to tell it was scaled. I remmeber Fall Creators Update hiving more scaling affected on-screen elements (that looked worse scaled).
 
Interesting observation though, Windows 10 Spring Update seems to have improved scaling algorithms, because image on laptop at 125% scale now looks way better than it did at 1920x1080. It's almost at a point it's hard to tell it was scaled. I remmeber Fall Creators Update hiving more scaling affected on-screen elements (that looked worse scaled).
Talking about Win10 and updates, after the fall update, my seconday monitor is too dark. It's like ti applies the color profile twice because on startup it's looking fine, but I can see it going darker like 1 or 2 seconds later. Reapplying the prfile by hand fixes the problem, but it's annoying to that on every reboot. Maybe the spring update will fix that.
Then again, that has stopped being a problem since I discovered there wasn't much I did that required Windows and started up booting into Linux almost exclusively.
 
It's probably not color profile as it's power saving profile or brightness level being wrongly applied on secondary screen. Wouldn't be the first time when all this power saving crap screws up something.
 
It's probably not color profile as it's power saving profile or brightness level being wrongly applied on secondary screen. Wouldn't be the first time when all this power saving crap screws up something.
I don't have power saving configured (this is a desktop) other than to shut off the monitor completely. And reapplying the ICC profile fixes it. But then again, stranger things have happened. Let's get back OT, before we get warnings ;)
 
I'm not saying you need to have it enabled. Windows could have borked it on its own...
 
The reason I say it was hard is that there were no tools to assist you with that job.
What??? That's just not true either as any true technician back then would know. Test pattern generators were not too expensive but still found in any reputable repair shop and even often taken on house calls (back when house calls actually happened).

I sure don't understand why you keep claiming these alignments were hard, and now claim that no tools were available to help. Those claims are just not true. The hardest part was finding the center of the screen, but 2 diagonal lines from corner to corner intersected at the center so even that was not hard. Did it take patience? Yes. Did it take a lot of back and forth, back and forth tuning adjustments? Yes. Did a good magnifying glass help? Yes. Was it dangerous digging around inside a live TV? Absolutely!!!! That's why such procedures should ONLY be done by a properly trained and qualified electronics technician who knows what he or she is doing. It was not a job for amateurs, wannabes, or the curious. But was it hard? NO!

And again, it was not the geometry issues that killed the CRT TV/monitor. IF a precision display was required (for medical status monitoring, for 1 example), precise geometry was obtainable by a qualified and properly equipped technician. What killed the CRT was primarily the bulkiness (especially on computer desktops) and energy consumption. Other factors that killed the CRT were weight (goes along with bulk), logistics (shipping and inventories - also going along with bulk), and other environmental issues such as hazardous materials - including the use of mercury inside each tube.

The cost of the first generation LCDs was NOT a factor as they were very expensive. And the quality of first generation LCDs was not either as they did not compare to the better CRTs. And still today, the best professional (cost is no object) CRTs offer better contrast and color depth.

And of course, and to the point of this thread, CRTs offer "multisync" (ability to display multiple resolutions without degrading quality) capabilities that cannot be matched by LCDs - in spite of what some here and many LCD makers' marketing weenies want us to believe.
 
What??? That's just not true either as any true technician back then would know. Test pattern generators were not too expensive but still found in any reputable repair shop and even often taken on house calls (back when house calls actually happened).

Ok, I think this is the piece I was missing. We didn't have those here in Eastern Europe. At least, they were not that widespred.
 
Well, they were available. Perhaps just too pricy. Or maybe government/international politics got in the way. I don't know.

But I know for a fact they had them in Western Europe in the early 70s because I used them when I lived in Portugal (Azores) and in the early 80s when I lived in the UK.
 
Back
Top