# Gaming on a CRT, is it worth it?



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

Who here games on a CRT and what are your opinions? Do you think it's overrated and a Flat Panel Display is perfectly suitable for retro games? Or is there really benefits playing on older displays?

Flat Panel Tech no longer have horrible picture. The gap on picture quality from Flat Panel Displays and CRT technology has closed by a lot and CRT's have been surpassed long ago in many areas.

Convenience is also a concern. Weight, Picture Adjustments (Geomytry and Convergence), Age and so forth.

Gaming on CRTs has risen in popularity, probably still niche, but gaining more interest because of a few Youtubers talking about them. What are your opinions. Do you agree with people that say there are benefits to a CRT? Do you think it's worth carrying an extra older display just for the purpose of retro gaming? Or do you think the positives are overblown.

I would like this thread for people to debate each other, people that think it's not worth it having an old display and people that do, and also want this thread to help people decide if they want to invest in a CRT based on the arguments presented.


----------



## DaFixer (Feb 16, 2020)

For old 8/16/32bit 2d games Yes!
I'm missing the scanlines on flat tv's, thats way i'm still using a CRT for my Commodore 64.
But there are also options to get scanlines on flat tv's
Input lag is also a thing, I notice this alot with R-type (arcade) on my Samsung F8000 tv and on my CRT monitor and Gaming Monitor.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 16, 2020)

Depends on how important it is to you that the game is displayed _exactly_ the way we saw it back in the 80's-90's. In the niche of people who are big on CRT's, the Sony PVM monitors are very popular and considered by many to be the ultimate ... but nobody was playing their Super Nintendo on one of those back in the day. (Take my word for it, I was there. In fact I was already in college when the NES launched in the US.)

I do think a consumer model Sony Trinitron 27", with component input (or SCART FTW if you're lucky enough to have one) is plenty fine to get the experience of gaming on a nice CRT, and yes it's something you should experience if you can. But nobody needs that to enjoy the games themselves. I have exactly that ... a 27" Trinitron, with component & s-vid inputs. Unfortunately it is a flat screen model, I would prefer it be the regular style. It weighs a bunch, but not as much as our old 36" JVC (RIP) weighed. And I own a bunch of old consoles with RGB mods, and a Framemeister, etc.  And, tbh I rarely use that stuff. I'm fine most of the time with plugging the SuperNT w/ SD2SNES into the 55" Sony LED HDTV and playing some F-Zero, or some Gamecube using the modded Wii w/ component cable.

A few years back when people started figuring out that old game consoles didn't connect or work well with modern TV's, finding a good CRT was the best solution because it solved all kinds of problems instantly. But there are ways around that for a lot of consoles now ... HDMI adapters, upscalers, Analogue & retroUSB, etc. So I guess I'm saying that unless replicating the past exactly is your goal, or you just have a fetish for hunting down expensive & cumbersome old video equipment, then nah not really worth it.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

Scanlines are also dependent on TV line count. Higher TV lines gives you thicker more defined scanlines almost an emulator type look.

TV lines is also debatable. Some prefer gaming on lower end CRT with lower TV lines for a softer image and with composite cables because it's how they remember their games when they were younger. Some prefer on a higher end CRT's with higher TV lines and more defined sharper emulator type look with cleaner Scanlines.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Depends on how important it is to you that the game is displayed _exactly_ the way we saw it back in the 80's-90's. In the niche of people who are big on CRT's, the Sony PVM monitors are very popular and considered by many to be the ultimate ... but nobody was playing their Super Nintendo on one of those back in the day. (Take my word for it, I was there. In fact I was already in college when the NES launched in the US.)
> 
> I do think a consumer model Sony Trinitron 27", with component input (or SCART FTW if you're lucky enough to have one) is plenty fine to get the experience of gaming on a nice CRT, and yes it's something you should experience if you can. But nobody needs that to enjoy the games themselves. I have exactly that ... a 27" Trinitron, with component & s-vid inputs. Unfortunately it is a flat screen model, I would prefer it be the regular style. It weighs a bunch, but not as much as our old 36" JVC (RIP) weighed. And I own a bunch of old consoles with RGB mods, and a Framemeister, etc.  And, tbh I rarely use that stuff. I'm fine most of the time with plugging the SuperNT w/ SD2SNES into the 55" Sony LED HDTV and playing some F-Zero, or some Gamecube using the modded Wii w/ component cable.
> 
> A few years back when people started figuring out that old game consoles didn't connect or work well with modern TV's, finding a good CRT was the best solution because it solved all kinds of problems instantly. But there are ways around that for a lot of consoles now ... HDMI adapters, upscalers, Analogue & retroUSB, etc. So I guess I'm saying that unless replicating the past exactly is your goal, or you just have a fetish for hunting down expensive & cumbersome old video equipment, then nah not really worth it.


Back then when people didn't have much options displaying their old consoles to a modern display CRT was the answer. But nowadays many different options to play their older games.

The only thing then for using a CRT is picture quality, but gap on that is closing. LCD's have perfect geometry, and don't have to deal with convergence, or warm up times for peak picture performance. Newer displays reach peak picture performance almost instantly after being turned on.

And CRTs screens are very reflective, contrast and picture quality drops in a brightly lit areas, LCDs maintain better contrast in bright rooms. CRTs are best performed in dark or dim rooms and not many people want to play in basically in a depressing dark place.

Deep Black levels is also no longer a CRT only thing, OLED and Dual Layer LCD's have deep black levels and produce higher contrast images.

Unless people want lower quality composite picture for dithering and transparency effects but emulators can replicate that too. Or unless people game with actual consoles which I think modern upscalers can also replicate those effects too.


----------



## orangy57 (Feb 16, 2020)

If you're playing on actual hardware, then a CRT is definitely worth it. There's something that just makes the graphics look so much worse when you play on an LCD or modern TV because it accentuates the awful, muddied signal from composite or even component cables by converting it to clear pixels. The CRT makes the experience nicer IMO because the whole image just looks blurry with the non-square beam that it shoots so it hides the imperfections, and is a way more direct signal from the console to the screen without any processing


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2020)

I definitely dig my CRT for PSX/N64/Dreamcast and older systems.  Anything newer or stronger you can mostly get away with displaying in HD/emulating just fine.


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 16, 2020)

between the lag on modern tvs being better than crt and just better picture quality using an fpga console i'd say only the most diehard of purists actually need those 80 pound tvs around to have a good time. well except for 32/128 bit era stuff. but then you want the fancier sets with s-video and component.
*i own a 27" JVC and it's only on for for ps1/2 and n64


----------



## Rahkeesh (Feb 16, 2020)

No LCD display has input lag better than a scaler-free CRT. (Therefore not counting HD-CRT.) Never mind transitions and blur/persistence. Some have gotten much closer but they still aren't there are likely never will be.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 16, 2020)

Three things CRT gives you

1) Almost inherently low latency. Towards the end I think there were a few computer driven models but most picture adjustments were made using good old fashioned analogue electronics 

2) A suitable input. TVs these days seem to lack much other than HDMI. Proper component, composite and RF... good luck with that. If it does something odd with it (much less tries to be a PAL signal doing something odd) then oh dear.

3) Things as described on http://bogost.com/games/a_television_simulator/

Low latency can be obtained by other means aka buying a suitable device

Inputs can have adapters that do well these days, especially if you are going for the best options available on a given system (most systems having mods to move away from RF output and towards something nicer).

That article notes that such things exist for emulators these days if you want, and most such things are edge cases or things you will have to be trained to note (some things with CGA colours aside).

Some like the glow, smell and feel as well but that is all them and I still have to work out if plasticisers and fire retardants can be made into a perfume a la the ones people make for books and whatever else.

They are often heavy as you like, especially if you are lucky enough to find a giant "flat screen" and wide screen telly with all the inputs (I never had the space but I would have cleaned up at charity shops if I had known back when LCDs started to trickle in and plasma dropped in price such that everybody else leapt and got a shiny 720i screen -- so many times did I see massive reasonably thin things with component in going for next to nothing). Barring plasma they also gobble a fair bit of power if that is a concern.

On scanlines. I only ever had TVs some 27 inches or greater and was never one to have a little 14 inch thing in my room as a kid. Also live in PAL country. While I continued to play consoles on CRT... up to and including the 360 actually (I would later shift to VGA and only went HDMI at the very end), and also had one of the earlier generations of what were then known as VGA boxes, I have no particular memories of the concept or lacking them in emulators (which I took up in earnest towards the end of the 16 bit era and have not stopped with since).

Above I saw a line saying exactly like it was back in the day, trouble is for that for me I remember a joke that video makers back then would tell you if you asked them what NTSC stands for. Answer is never the same colour, and for good reason. PAL was slightly better here but PAL for games is a tricky proposition.


----------



## ThoD (Feb 16, 2020)

In my opinion, HD CRT monitors are worth it if you want to play something that requires incredible input precision competitively since inputs are pretty much instant due to how frames are drawn and there's a clear diffference between CRTs and more recent screens (CRTs are about 0.4 seconds when it comes to displaying and processing inputs). Other than that, just play on whatever you have, doesn't really change much besides it, although CRTs kinda require you to put the filter screen in front of them, so gamma can seem kinda bad...


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 16, 2020)

If you have the space for both a flat screen and a decent sized CRT, I suppose it's worth it. It's just going to be too inconvenient for most people due to how heavy they are to transport and how much space they take up. And you also have to consider, why do you want a CRT? What would the benefits be, over getting something like a Framemeister? I personally can't think of any reasons, other than one - Retro games just look better on a CRT, because you can't tell how low resolution they are. The Framemeister has filters to emulate the CRT look, but of course it's not going to be the same exact thing. But then again, that's why I use emulators. 3D games up to GC/PS2 and even the Wii look awful on a modern screen. They look quite a bit better in emulators, but there is only so much you can do to make N64 and PSX look better. GC, PS2 and Wii show more noticeable improvements when emulated however.

Also, I can't imagine playing N64 on real hardware ever again without an UltraHDMI. I've been spoiled by how crisp everything looks on emulators, and the blur filter built in to the N64 just ruins it for me. So if I wasn't emulating, I would want to play on a flat screen to take advantage of UltraHDMI. CRT would be a no go.

Personally, I like the crisp look of flat screens and have no wish to go back to the dark days of CRTs where everything was smeared together. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## CactusMan (Feb 16, 2020)

It´s only worth it if you want to play lightgun games if you ask me.
I don´t realy need minmal imput lag to play games. It´s not like I´m atmeting a world record speed run. To much of a drag seting it up with to less benefits. Il use the NES Classic or boot up retroarch.


----------



## element6 (Feb 16, 2020)

Like many have said, this is entirely a case of at least one or more of the following:

Personal preference
Space
Money
If you are obsessed with old hardware, then it may follow suit that you would find the novelty in a PVM/BVM or CRTs in general. Keep in mind that like most things, owning a 15-30 year old PVM comes with upkeep ($) of its own, requires space, uses a decent amount of power, and god help you if you go down the rabbithole that is specialty cables, cards, and a framemeister (or similar) processor.

I grew up on a 20" Hitachi with an NES that was handed down to my brother and I. Playing on a PVM with a modded NES is a different experience, and to me it's worth having, but you may be inclined to spend the money on something more important to you. Economics 101; utility.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> If you have the space for both a flat screen and a decent sized CRT, I suppose it's worth it. It's just going to be too inconvenient for most people due to how heavy they are to transport and how much space they take up. And you also have to consider, why do you want a CRT? What would the benefits be, over getting something like a Framemeister? I personally can't think of any reasons, other than one - Retro games just look better on a CRT, because you can't tell how low resolution they are. The Framemeister has filters to emulate the CRT look, but of course it's not going to be the same exact thing. But then again, that's why I use emulators. 3D games up to GC/PS2 and even the Wii look awful on a modern screen. They look quite a bit better in emulators, but there is only so much you can do to make N64 and PSX look better. GC, PS2 and Wii show more noticeable improvements when emulated however.
> 
> Also, I can't imagine playing N64 on real hardware ever again without an UltraHDMI. I've been spoiled by how crisp everything looks on emulators, and the blur filter built in to the N64 just ruins it for me. So if I wasn't emulating, I would want to play on a flat screen to take advantage of UltraHDMI. CRT would be a no go.
> 
> Personally, I like the crisp look of flat screens and have no wish to go back to the dark days of CRTs where everything was smeared together. But maybe that's just me.


That's probably dependent on the CRT and cables you have. Composite will make everything you describe. A good Scart/component will make everything look better not a smeary.



ThoD said:


> In my opinion, HD CRT monitors are worth it if you want to play something that requires incredible input precision competitively since inputs are pretty much instant due to how frames are drawn and there's a clear diffference between CRTs and more recent screens (CRTs are about 0.4 seconds when it comes to displaying and processing inputs). Other than that, just play on whatever you have, doesn't really change much besides it, although CRTs kinda require you to put the filter screen in front of them, so gamma can seem kinda bad...


It just seams a little bit nit picky to me. Flat screens have input latency so low that the very small fraction is probably not noticable to human eyes.

A CRT does bring all of the best picture qualities under one display. Low Latency, good black reproduction, wide viewing angles, good motion handling (but there is phosphor trails), good colors. On an LCD there is usually a compromise. Low latency but bad picture. Really good picture but bad latency. Though recent flat screens are challenging that with both good picture and low latency. IPS panels (usually in the past having more lag compared to TN panels) are becoming more and more suitable for gaming, and Oleds TVs are shipping with lower latency.

CRTs do require some kind of anti glare protector so that gamma won't be bad. But some people don't like the blurriness it gives, although this may also be bit nit picky and the slight blurriness probably is not very noticable, kind like people that complain about screen protectors on their phones.


----------



## RowanDDR (Feb 16, 2020)

Get an OSSC. Cheap scanlines and low latency.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

element6 said:


> Like many have said, this is entirely a case of at least one or more of the following:
> 
> Personal preference
> Space
> ...


A big problem is finding a good tv tech that can service these older displays. Most won't go near a CRT. So the only option left for those people are servicing yourself which can be very difficult finding documentation.


----------



## tech3475 (Feb 16, 2020)

I have an old CRT TV next to my Samsung 50" as it was just lying around the garage.

It does come in handy since my current cheap upscaler can have issues and for light gun support.

If it broke however, I'd sooner replace it with something like an OSSC, etc. than buy a new TV unless I got one dirt cheap e.g. charity shop.


----------



## pop13_13 (Feb 16, 2020)

I used to play a lot on CRTs (mainly Samsung SyncMaster, and some IBM ones). Back then, it was the only option, I'm glad we have flatscreens.

My eyed get tired from CRTs and backlight strobed LCDs. Other than that, it was OK.

Would I shell out more than 100€ to play on a CRT? No, I'll stick with my IPS monitor.

Do some games look better on a CRT? Yes

Do I care about games which look betyer on CRTs (pre PS2 stuff)? No, I haven't grown up with the NES, SNES or the N64, and I don't realy care about those games. If I want to have the best experience, I emulate the consoles and upscale.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 16, 2020)

CRT TVs are suitable for retro gaming so if you have space, then go for it.

HD CRT TVs exist, but they can be incredibly heavy (SD CRT TVs can already be heavy as it is). I mean, I can generally carry most CRT TVs, but a HD CRT TV like the one below can literally kill someone or break an arm/leg. Not kidding.


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 16, 2020)

I live in a PAL region, so RGB SCART support was mandatory for a very long time. I find that the best option for retro gaming is a 15" CRT that supports PAL60 and NTSC (most later ones do). I have one that I've been using with my NTSC SNES, PAL Mega Drive (both through RGB SCART) and PAL N64 (through composite cables) and I'm satisfied with the picture. All of these consoles look downright horrible when I plug them into my 2012 40" 1080p HDTV (at the time, they still had RGB SCART as well in Europe). I probably wouldn't hunt down a CRT just for that purpose, but I had two of them lying around, and the difference is enough for me to keep them for as long as they work.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Feb 16, 2020)

If you're not emulating and you want to play retro systems in the most "original" way possible (or if you want to play light guns games), absolutely. The only real downside to CRTs are their size and weight, and if you can accommodate that then I see no reason not to have one, especially when you can usually find someone just giving theirs away for free, if you pick it up yourself anyways.

If you don't care about atrocious stretching and shit scaling modern TVs do, or if you have lots of extra cash to buy a decent upscaler, or if you're totally fine with emulation, then you don't really need one, no.

Really as simple as that, just down to personal preference and nothing more. Is it a _necessity_? Only if you think it is (unless you want to play classic light gun games, then it is).


I keep a big 28" CRT for all my retro consoles myself, I can't see myself spending tons of cash on a decent upscaler and I have all the room in the world so there's no downside to me having one. That said, I don't use it too often, usually if I'm playing a retro game it'll be on one of the many devices I have that emulate them.


----------



## supergamer368 (Feb 16, 2020)

I’m not 100% sure about for games you’d hook up to a tv (my only crt tv is dora the explorer-themed and barely functioning.) But for PC games. Y E S . I have a Windows 98 machine and I use it to play all sorts of games from Half-Life to Lego Racers. These games run at quite low resolutions and look terrible stretched out on high-res LCDs. But on a CRT, they look AMAZING. I love everything about my CRT and my old computer (which my dad still thinks is a hunk of junk, i can remember him saying the CRT wouldn’t fit on my desk... who’s laughin’ and playin’ Lego Racers now???) I only paid $60-ish for the monitor, but many of them online cost a ton. I’d say it’s worth it if you can find it for a good price.


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 16, 2020)

supergamer368 said:


> I’m not 100% sure about for games you’d hook up to a tv (my only crt tv is dora the explorer-themed and barely functioning.) But for PC games. Y E S . I have a Windows 98 machine and I use it to play all sorts of games from Half-Life to Lego Racers. These games run at quite low resolutions and look terrible stretched out on high-res LCDs. But on a CRT, they look AMAZING. I love everything about my CRT and my old computer (which my dad still thinks is a hunk of junk, i can remember him saying the CRT wouldn’t fit on my desk... who’s laughin’ and playin’ Lego Racers now???) I only paid $60-ish for the monitor, but many of them online cost a ton. I’d say it’s worth it if you can find it for a good price.


I actually find that PC games are much easier to play on newer screens, as long as you know your way around resolution configurations, graphics drivers and third-party scaling apps. I have a 28" 4K screen and I play emulated and old PC stuff quite well on it, since most emulators have built-in integer scaling and scanline filters, and old PC games can run in windowed mode, meaning I can use a handy app called Lossless Scaling (the free Demo version is more than enough for most cases)


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Feb 16, 2020)

I would say, only do this if you care about the waterfall in sonic the hedgehog to look like a proper waterfall. Even officially licensed emulators by sega can't do this, no matter how hard I tried. (Note, only works for games using dithering.) Take that all you sharp pixels that like to be square and jagged.


----------



## Captain_N (Feb 16, 2020)

I only game on a crt. I love the way they smooth everything out. I never liked the sharp edges that stand out on lcd tvs. There is 0 onput lag. thats do to it being analog. there is no signal processing. I prefer the color depths as well. there is no pixelation from 2d games as the crt screen hides that.
I converted my switch from hdmi to rca and it works well. A crt does not care the resolution as it has no native resolution.

They last alot longer then modern tvs. They are much easier to fix. The older ones dont have many integrated circuits. The tv i use has 3 main chips one is a multi function chip (that is available to purchase), one is a small cpu and the other is a small ram chip to store settings. every other component is replaceable and easy to solder. The one part i cant fix is the picture tube. once that goes that's it. That why i have extras.

The only issue is the small text in some games. there is no reason the gui and text have to be 1 centimeter big. Most of nintendos games dont have this issue. xenoblade 2 text is 100% readable. The text in modern games is small even on a hdtv. These devs need to change the gui/font to size 12 ans no 4. Look at xenoblade x text. that is like size 2.


----------



## Sabotage0 (Feb 16, 2020)

Absolutely for light gun games. Be careful with hd crts though. Mine converts the analog to digital so there is a delay in video processing and my nes light gun games don't work.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 16, 2020)

Shady Guy Jose said:


> I live in a PAL region, so RGB SCART support was mandatory for a very long time. I find that the best option for retro gaming is a 15" CRT that supports PAL60 and NTSC (most later ones do). I have one that I've been using with my NTSC SNES, PAL Mega Drive (both through RGB SCART) and PAL N64 (through composite cables) and I'm satisfied with the picture. All of these consoles look downright horrible when I plug them into my 2012 40" 1080p HDTV (at the time, they still had RGB SCART as well in Europe). I probably wouldn't hunt down a CRT just for that purpose, but I had two of them lying around, and the difference is enough for me to keep them for as long as they work.


I find it strange that in Portugal, SCART wasn't used that much when we practically used SCART until HDMI took over. I'm glad it's over for SCART cables because they were really fat/thick and RCAs could do the same and they were far thinner.


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 16, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I find it strange that in Portugal, SCART wasn't used that much when we practically used SCART until HDMI took over. I'm glad it's over for SCART cables because they were really fat/thick and RCAs could do the same and they were far thinner.


SCART was used a lot here in Portugal for Cable boxes and (sometimes) VCRs. Consoles always came with composite cables and a SCART adapter, but it was _only _an adapter to pass the composite signal through a SCART input. I never saw an RGB SCART cable for a console in a retail store.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sonic Angel Knight said:


> I would say, only do this if you care about the waterfall in sonic the hedgehog to look like a proper waterfall. Even officially licensed emulators by sega can't do this, no matter how hard I tried. (Note, only works for games using dithering.) Take that all you sharp pixels that like to be square and jagged.



Hmmm... I've been using an RGB SCART cable with my Mega Drive, and I didn't notice that. It makes perfect sense that it would happen if developers leveraged the expected pixel blending to create a proper transparency effect with alternating vertical bars. Maybe my 15" TV is just too small for me to see it? I'll have to check it out


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 16, 2020)

SG854 said:


> That's probably dependent on the CRT and cables you have. Composite will make everything you describe. A good Scart/component will make everything look better not a smeary.
> 
> 
> It just seams a little bit nit picky to me. Flat screens have input latency so low that the very small fraction is probably not noticable to human eyes.
> ...


It's the light bleed on the pixels, it makes everything look blurry/smeared.

I don't know about "all of the best picture qualities", sure it has some benefits, but it also has a lot of drawbacks. You can get all of those benefits in a modern TV, without any of the drawbacks.
Viewing angles are not much of a concern to me, as you are never going to want to watch TV or play games at a 70 degree angle from the screen, it's not pleasant. But if you for some reason want to be able to do that, you still can, you just have to pay the premium.
The main compromise with CRTs is the blurriness/smear, meaning loss of detail, and that is a much bigger deal to me (as it should be to most) than viewing angles on something you typically will want to look at from directly in front anyway, or close to it.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> If you're not emulating and you want to play retro systems in the most "original" way possible (or if you want to play light guns games), absolutely. The only real downside to CRTs are their size and weight, and if you can accommodate that then I see no reason not to have one, especially when you can usually find someone just giving theirs away for free, if you pick it up yourself anyways.
> 
> If you don't care about atrocious stretching and shit scaling modern TVs do, or if you have lots of extra cash to buy a decent upscaler, or if you're totally fine with emulation, then you don't really need one, no.
> 
> ...


I would say theres more downsides then just weight and size. You can't put magnets near it without it messing up the screen, so that means external speakers can't be close to a CRT especially if space is limited, unless they are shielded which is more money and a hassle to learn to do.

Not all consoles output the same on a CRT. Having an all in one perfect geomytry setting is not possible. On some the picture my be shifted little to the right cutting off the right side, some output smaller then the full screen size. You would have to set it to be good enough for most consoles, not perfect but good enough. People may complain about digital upscalers and lag they may/may not introduce but they make life much easier with image size and scaling then dealing with an analogue display.


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 16, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> It's the light bleed on the pixels, it makes everything look blurry/smeared.
> 
> I don't know about "all of the best picture qualities", sure it has some benefits, but it also has a lot of drawbacks. You can get all of those benefits in a modern TV, without any of the drawbacks.
> Viewing angles are not much of a concern to me, as you are never going to want to watch TV or play games at a 70 degree angle from the screen, it's not pleasant. But if you for some reason want to be able to do that, you still can, you just have to pay the premium.
> The main compromise with CRTs is the blurriness/smear, meaning loss of detail, and that is a much bigger deal to me (as it should be to most) than viewing angles on something you typically will want to look at from directly in front anyway, or close to it.


That's why most purists go for Component or RGB Cables when available, then S-Video, Composite and RF in decreasing order. The blurriness and smear disappear (for better or worse, as described in a previous post by @Sonic Angel Knight above) when using a better cable, and the scanline effect that most retro games expect is not that easy to reproduce in fixed pixel displays unless the resolution is like 10× higher.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 16, 2020)

Shady Guy Jose said:


> That's why most purists go for Component or RGB Cables when available, then S-Video, Composite and RF in decreasing order. The blurriness and smear disappear (for better or worse, as described in a previous post by @Sonic Angel Knight above) when using a better cable, and the scanline effect that most retro games expect is not that easy to reproduce in fixed pixel displays unless the resolution is like 10× higher.


It has nothing to do with the cable used, it's due to the CRT technology.
Bad quality image might make it worse, but it's not the main cause.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> It's the light bleed on the pixels, it makes everything look blurry/smeared.
> 
> I don't know about "all of the best picture qualities", sure it has some benefits, but it also has a lot of drawbacks. You can get all of those benefits in a modern TV, without any of the drawbacks.
> Viewing angles are not much of a concern to me, as you are never going to want to watch TV or play games at a 70 degree angle from the screen, it's not pleasant. But if you for some reason want to be able to do that, you still can, you just have to pay the premium.
> The main compromise with CRTs is the blurriness/smear, meaning loss of detail, and that is a much bigger deal to me (as it should be to most) than viewing angles on something you typically will want to look at from directly in front anyway, or close to it.


It depends to on the CRT you're using. Lower end ones around 300 TV lines blur and smear, less sharp, lots of bleeding. Higher end ones around 800 TV lines are sharper even just as sharp or almost as sharp as an LCD, and don't bleed but this is going into PVM Professional Monitor territory and at this point why not get an LCD, less of a hassle with weight and stuff.

IPS panels with wide viewing angles no longer command really high premium prices. I see quite a few pretty cheap.


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 16, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> It has nothing to do with the cable used, it's due to the CRT technology.
> Bad quality image might make it worse, but it's not the main cause.


Unless you mean the fact that the grid isn't exactly square, as has been discussed here as well. That is, indeed, true, but again, most retro games were developed with that in mind, so forcing them to display on fixed square pixel screens will yield results that aren't necessarily better than the natural blurriness of CRTs. In that case, it's a matter of personal preference.


----------



## subcon959 (Feb 16, 2020)

I grew up with a 14" CRT in the 8/16-bit era so that is what I enjoy playing on now as it's 100% about the nostalgia and escapism (back to my favourite years) for me.

Once the tube in my CM8833 goes though, I won't bother replacing it.. and I certainly would never fork out for a PVM.


----------



## TunaKetchup (Feb 16, 2020)

Do you wanna play games how they were designed to be played?

To look how they were designed to look?

To have the proper input lag for how the game was designed?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You wouldn't play Resident Evil 2 Remake on a CRT TV

You wouldn't play Resident Evil 2 Original on an HD TV


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 16, 2020)

A seller I was chatting with on eBay via PM told me that a 14" SONY Trinitron CRT TV is really good for 8/16bit games.

Looks like this, I think:


----------



## SG854 (Feb 16, 2020)

Boesy said:


> A seller I was chatting with on eBay via PM told me that a 14" SONY Trinitron CRT TV is really good for 8/16bit games.
> 
> Looks like this, I think:


A 14 inch is pretty small at least for me. I would say 20 inch and up is better. But 14 inch is a lot less heavy and easier to move around. Smaller screen sizes do have a sharper picture, it follows the same principle of flat panel pixel per inch, the SD image is less blown up to a bigger size and therefore sharper.

Sony Trinitrons are the best of CRT tech. They have an Apature Grill which gives a better brighter picture then other non Sony sets. Non Sony sets sometimes use a Shadow Mask which isn't as good as the Apature Grill, at least for the early ones. In the 90's though Shadow Mask technology became very good and would say those sets are pretty good, debatable though as some still prefer Sony sets.

If you want it for classic gaming and want CRT tech then go for it. But there is a few things you must learn about a CRT and maintenance to get it at peak performance and get the best out of it.

Also a concern is the condition of the tube, a worn out one will give you horrible picture.


----------



## Nobody_Important4u (Feb 16, 2020)

Yes, quality is much better.


 
Sorry i had to show off.


----------



## Engezerstorung (Feb 16, 2020)

also, without debating of quality and image, one of the advantage of having a CRT screen is to be able to play with the games using guns (like the ps1 one), because their technologie is basically using a specificity of how CRT work

but i heard there is some kind of accessories to put over non crt screen nowadays

( https://www.howtogeek.com/181303/ht...per-worked-and-why-it-doesnt-work-on-new-tvs/ )


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 16, 2020)

Engezerstorung said:


> also, without debating of quality and image, one of the advantage of having a CRT screen is to be able to play with the games using guns (like the ps1 one), because their technologie is basically using a specificity of how CRT work
> 
> but i heard there is some kind of accessories to put over non crt screen nowadays
> 
> ( https://www.howtogeek.com/181303/ht...per-worked-and-why-it-doesnt-work-on-new-tvs/ )


Those are the "light guns" that were being discussed here a while earlier


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2020)

SG854 said:


> A 14 inch is pretty small at least for me. I would say 20 inch and up is better. But 14 inch is a lot less heavy and easier to move around. Smaller screen sizes do have a sharper picture, it follows the same principle of flat panel pixel per inch, the SD image is less blown up to a bigger size and therefore sharper.
> 
> Sony Trinitrons are the best of CRT tech. They have an Apature Grill which gives a better brighter picture then other non Sony sets. Non Sony sets sometimes use a Shadow Mask which isn't as good as the Apature Grill, at least for the early ones. In the 90's though Shadow Mask technology became very good and would say those sets are pretty good, debatable though as some still prefer Sony sets.
> 
> ...


I just checked eBay U.K. for Sony Trinitron CRT TVs and damn.. they're holding their value. CRT TVs generally are valueless.


----------



## TunaKetchup (Feb 17, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I just checked eBay U.K. for Sony Trinitron CRT TVs and damn.. they're holding their value. CRT TVs generally are valueless.



They are the BMW of CRT TVs


----------



## SG854 (Feb 17, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I just checked eBay U.K. for Sony Trinitron CRT TVs and damn.. they're holding their value. CRT TVs generally are valueless.





TunaKetchup said:


> They are the BMW of CRT TVs


At least the Professional Sony ones, those would be the BMW's. A lower end PVM are selling in the hundreds, while I see ebay prices for High End PVM's up over $1,000 (U.S. Dollars). Very high prices for a used monitor.

A Consumer Grade Sony is still very good and among the best of CRTs and can be had for cheaper. A Pro grade monitor though will output a better picture, which even the best consumer grade CRT can't match.


----------



## subcon959 (Feb 17, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I just checked eBay U.K. for Sony Trinitron CRT TVs and damn.. they're holding their value. CRT TVs generally are valueless.


Yeah, and you will notice most of them put "retro gaming" in the title cos they know the current trend. Ebay is not a great place for CRTs anyway as it's easy to hide faults. Much better off checking local listings where you can pop round and check it out and it's often people who are just looking to get rid instead of making profit.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 17, 2020)

Is this where we are supposed to make a list of 90% of the way there/hidden gem type brands, models and the like?


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 17, 2020)

Shady Guy Jose said:


> Unless you mean the fact that the grid isn't exactly square, as has been discussed here as well. That is, indeed, true, but again, most retro games were developed with that in mind, so forcing them to display on fixed square pixel screens will yield results that aren't necessarily better than the natural blurriness of CRTs. In that case, it's a matter of personal preference.


Which part of "light bleed" don't you understand?


SG854 said:


> It depends to on the CRT you're using. Lower end ones around 300 TV lines blur and smear, less sharp, lots of bleeding. Higher end ones around 800 TV lines are sharper even just as sharp or almost as sharp as an LCD, and don't bleed but this is going into PVM Professional Monitor territory and at this point why not get an LCD, less of a hassle with weight and stuff.
> 
> IPS panels with wide viewing angles no longer command really high premium prices. I see quite a few pretty cheap.


Maybe you're right, I've never had the pleasure of using a PVM/BVM so maybe light bleed isn't as bad on higher quality monitors.
But don't all CRTs display 480/576 lines anyway, when fed a 480/576 line signal?


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 17, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Which part of "light bleed" don't you understand?
> 
> Maybe you're right, I've never had the pleasure of using a PVM/BVM so maybe light bleed isn't as bad on higher quality monitors.
> But don't all CRTs display 480/576 lines anyway, when fed a 480/576 line signal?


Do you mean pixel-by-pixel light bleed, as in adjacent pixels getting slightly mixed/blurred together?

Regarding the second part, I know you weren't replying to me, but no, that isn't the case, unfortunately. They will take that signal and fire that many lines into the screen, but the screen itself may not have that resolution, and will blur adjacent lines together.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 17, 2020)

Shady Guy Jose said:


> Do you mean pixel-by-pixel light bleed, as in adjacent pixels getting slightly mixed/blurred together?
> 
> Regarding the second part, I know you weren't replying to me, but no, that isn't the case, unfortunately. They will take that signal and fire that many lines into the screen, but the screen itself may not have that resolution, and will blur adjacent lines together.


Yes, that's exactly it.

I've always heard that CRTs don't have a native resolution though.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2020)

I prefer the look of a sharp CRT, but it isn't practical for me to own one so I use a line doubler.


----------



## duwen (Feb 17, 2020)

For lightgun games - definitely NEED a CRT.
For an authentic vintage arcade cab - again, definitely NEED a CRT.

For everything else, it kind of depends. With the right output everything can look great on modern screens; sharp, pixel perfect, graphics can look amazing (I'd never want to replicate scanlines on a modern screen - that shit's dumb), but if you want authenticity then you're probably best sticking with a CRT for everything up to and including the N64.
From the Dreamcast on everything has a pretty decent method of outputting to a format that can be viewed on modern screens and look fantastic


----------



## andyhappypants (Feb 17, 2020)

Absolutely worth it for the really old stuff! Gutted my Sony Wega 32" died late last year. That thing was the tits but was huge and weighed half a tonne!


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 17, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Yes, that's exactly it.
> 
> I've always heard that CRTs don't have a native resolution though.


Let me answer both points at once, because they're actually related. CRTs indeed don't have a native resolution, because the cathode ray tube operates independently from the number of pixels on the actual screen panel. It just fires 240 lines per frame (240p or 480i is the same in that regard) 60 times per second (288/576/50 in PAL signals). The panel itself has pixels distributed in a non-square grid, as shown in the image below:







And come CRTs have more than others. Smaller ones typically have lower maximum resolutions due to a smaller number of physical pixels, while accepting and processing the same signals.

However, lines are, well, lines. This means that a single line will inevitably pass through the middle of two vertically-adjacent physical pixels every other pixel, affecting both. It also follows that every physical pixel will be affected by two different lines passing through, which means it will always be an average of two vertically-adjacent "pixels" in the signal. This is what results in the vertical component of the "light bleed" you describe.
As for the horizontal component, the explanation lies within the fact that these lines are analog, not digital. This means the number of different light/color points per line isn't fixed. The theoretical maximum horizontal points in an analog line is 720 (704 if you account for the usual amount of overscan). Imagining square pixels, this is enough for a 4:3 picture at 480i (640), but not at 576i (768), so PAL signals always have some horizontal blur. 16:9 always use non-square pixels because of this (854 pixels would be needed in 480i, and 1024 in 576i). This gets even more confusing for video game consoles in the 240p era, since some used 256 horizontal pixels (the max possible value of a single byte), while others used 320 for proper square pixels at a 4:3 aspect ratio. Now, this means the number of horizontal pixels on a TV would pretty much _never _match (or be a multiple of) the number of different color points in the signal it's being fed from a console. As was the case with the vertical mismatch, this leads to a physical/signal pixel number mismatch, which results in blurring. Not from light bleed, but from the need to average out the conflicting signals that each physical pixel is getting.

Furthermore, lower-quality signals from composite or RF cables make the horizontal component even worse due to signal interference from channels other than video.

Now, you may say "that's all true, but the result is that I still see a blur and I don't like it". Well, yes and no.
First, because most games of that era were developed with that blur in mind, and thus need it for some intentional visual effects, like the transparency in the waterfall in Sonic mentioned above. I've seen instances of both stripes and checkerboard patterns for transparency. They sometimes rely on it so much that simply using RGB cables is enough to expose some of these artifacts.
Second, because the blur you get from trying to fit a 256×224 with black bars that make 256×240 signal into a 1920×1080 HDTV, even if we assume 1440×1080 with black bars on the sides, is going to be a hell of a lot worse, both due to bilinear filtering and an uneven multiplication factor. For consoles that use 320×240, a proper upscaler such as the Framemeister or a mod such as the UltraHDMI will properly upscale this to 1280×960 with small black bars top and bottom and big ones left and right for a true 1080p image. But this is an edge case that few people will have access to, and it still won't work if the signal is 256×224, as is the case with the NES and SNES.
So, in conclusion, even if the blur you see actually does happen, it's hard to find an alternative that's not even worse outside of emulation. And even if you do, it may have unintended consequences, such as the Sonic waterfall case (admittedly an edge case, but there are other examples).

Sorry for the huge post


----------



## SG854 (Feb 17, 2020)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Which part of "light bleed" don't you understand?
> 
> Maybe you're right, I've never had the pleasure of using a PVM/BVM so maybe light bleed isn't as bad on higher quality monitors.
> But don't all CRTs display 480/576 lines anyway, when fed a 480/576 line signal?


480i/576i is vertical lines. TV lines measures the Horizontal lines/resolution. The Higher the TV line count the sharper the image. A 240p image on a 800 TV line CRT will look alot sharper then a 240p image on a 300 TV line CRT.

On lower TV line CRT's the Horizontal lines blur together, still getting the same image as a higher tv line display but just not as sharp and defined. This is why Scanline's are thicker on a PVM almost emulator look because of their higher TV lines. 

On these high TV line Sony CRT Trinitrons you'll see the words HR in front of it, which stands for High Resolution which is talking about TV lines.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 17, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Is this where we are supposed to make a list of 90% of the way there/hidden gem type brands, models and the like?


Here's a list. From Sony, Ikegami, Bang and Olufsen, JVC, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Eizo, Nec, Nokia.... From Pro Monitors, Consumer Sets, PC Displays. Not all the CRTs but a decent list of what they resolutions they support and other information.

https://www.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/wiki/speclist


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 17, 2020)

SG854 said:


> 480i/576i is vertical lines. TV lines measures the Horizontal lines/resolution. The Higher the TV line count the sharper the image. A 240p image on a 800 TV line CRT will look alot sharper then a 240p image on a 300 TV line CRT.
> 
> On lower TV line CRT's the Horizontal lines blur together, still getting the same image as a higher tv line display but just not as sharp and defined. This is why Scanline's are thicker on a PVM almost emulator look because of their higher TV lines.
> 
> On these high TV line Sony CRT Trinitrons you'll see the words HR in front of it, which stands for High Resolution which is talking about TV lines.


Just a small correction there: 480/576 is the vertical resolution, but not the number of vertical lines. It's horizontal lines, in fact. Vertical resolution is measured by the number of horizontal lines and vice-versa (because the number of dots/pixels in a vertical column is the same as the number of horizontal lines in the display). So the number of TV lines measures the number of horizontal lines, but vertical resolution. An 800-line CRT will display thicker scanlines than a 300-line one because only 240 lines will be "lit up" across the display, meaning slightly less than one every 3 lines, while a 300-line CRT would only have 60 blank lines across the whole panel. Horizontal resolution (number of pixels in a line/number of vertical lines or columns) isn't even measured on CRT TVs due to the analog nature of the signal, which makes individual dots/pixels indistinguishable.

EDIT: I looked a bit further into it and some sets *do *measure maximum horizontal resolution (number of vertical lines) as well.


----------



## TunaKetchup (Feb 17, 2020)

subcon959 said:


> Yeah, and you will notice most of them put "retro gaming" in the title cos they know the current trend. Ebay is not a great place for CRTs anyway as it's easy to hide faults. Much better off checking local listings where you can pop round and check it out and it's often people who are just looking to get rid instead of making profit.



I got mine off Offerup for $10 USD

Some old lady was selling her CRT

She has no idea and even asked me why the hell I wanted it


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

Shady Guy Jose said:


> Just a small correction there: 480/576 is the vertical resolution, but not the number of vertical lines. It's horizontal lines, in fact. Vertical resolution is measured by the number of horizontal lines and vice-versa (because the number of dots/pixels in a vertical column is the same as the number of horizontal lines in the display). So the number of TV lines measures the number of horizontal lines, but vertical resolution. An 800-line CRT will display thicker scanlines than a 300-line one because only 240 lines will be "lit up" across the display, meaning slightly less than one every 3 lines, while a 300-line CRT would only have 60 blank lines across the whole panel. Horizontal resolution (number of pixels in a line/number of vertical lines or columns) isn't even measured on CRT TVs due to the analog nature of the signal, which makes individual dots/pixels indistinguishable.
> 
> EDIT: I looked a bit further into it and some sets *do *measure maximum horizontal resolution (number of vertical lines) as well.


TV lines measures the Horizontal Resolution not the vertical. It's based on the number of Black and White Vertical Lines. An 800 TV line CRT has 400 White Lines and 400 Black lines. The more vertical lines that are stacked side by side from left to right the more resolution and detail it can resolve horizontally. This is why when you look at the HR label on the front of a PVM it shows vertical lines. And the HR symbol is talking about TV lines.

I mean to say number of lines stacked vertically. Vertical Resolution is measured by the number of Scanning Lines, the 480, from 640x480 resolution. There are 480 horizontal scanning lines stacked on top of each other vertically from top to bottom and is the measured vertical resolution.

So Anolouge Resolution is determined by number of TV lines and scanning lines. In digital resolution is determined by total number of pixels. So in Anolouge world a 800 TV line Display means you have a resolution of 800x480.

Everything I read counts TV lines as Horizontal resolution.
https://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/456719-best-crt-retr


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

Shady Guy Jose said:


> EDIT: I looked a bit further into it and some sets *do *measure maximum horizontal resolution (number of vertical lines) as well.


You can Measure Horizontal and Vertical Resolution using a test pattern like this.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_Resolution_Chart_1956.svg

The part in the middle that says 200, 300, 400, 500, 800 is how you measure TV lines. The point at which the black lines converge to a single line is the number of TV lines your display has, and the resolution and fine detail it can resolve. So if they converge at the 300 mark then your display supports 300 TV lines. If they converge at the 600 mark then it's a 600 line display.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 18, 2020)

SG854 said:


> You can Measure Horizontal and Vertical Resolution using a test pattern like this.
> 
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_Resolution_Chart_1956.svg
> 
> The part in the middle that says 200, 300, 400, 500, 800 is how you measure TV lines. The point at which the black lines converge to a single line is the number of TV lines your display has, and the resolution and fine detail it can resolve. So if they converge at the 300 mark then your display supports 300 TV lines. If they converge at the 600 mark then it's a 600 line display.


Not really, CRTs work in a way pseudo-analog masked fashion.
They don't really have a native resolution.
And anyway, the "480" lines from NTSC (the raster) is actually related to vertical resolution of the signal, not of the CRT, a continuous horizontal line is drawn 480 times (in two separate 240 lines interleaves) to produce a picture.

Regarding the phosphorous cells in the screen, they are not pixels, they are just masked groups of red/green/blue, each one of those masked groups can be exited in many different points with different intensities, each one of them contains as many pixels as you would like (as long as you can really focus the ray good enough along the cell).

I think I can find you a good youtube video that could explain that better than me.

PS:


I think the explanation is not superclear there, but if you pay attention and try to really understand what he is trying to explain you will get it. The fact that there's video and pictures to illustrate it makes it also easier to understand.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Not really, CRTs work in a way pseudo-analog masked fashion.
> They don't really have a native resolution.
> And anyway, the "480" lines from NTSC (the raster) is actually related to vertical resolution of the signal, not of the CRT, a continuous horizontal line is drawn 480 times (in two separate 240 lines interleaves) to produce a picture.
> 
> ...



I know CRTs aren't pixels, the resolution is limited by the khz the Display supports. 15khz display can do 480i but not 720p. Horizontal resolution the Tube supports can be measured with a test pattern. And the vertical resolution of the signal can be measured with the test pattern also.

You mean a video like this. It's an awesome video and show with really clear examples how CRT's work. I've seen the video you linked before.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@sarkwalvein A Horizontal resolution is limited on a CRT though which is measured by TV lines. Look at a 480i image on a Cheapo consumer set and look at one on a Pro monitor (if you can find one) and you'll notice a difference in sharpness.

A benefit of CRT is that they support multiple resolutions natively with no need for upscaling.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 18, 2020)

SG854 said:


> @sarkwalvein A Horizontal resolution is limited on a CRT though which is measured by TV lines. Look at a 480i image on a Cheapo consumer set and look at one on a Pro monitor and you'll notice a difference in sharpness.
> 
> A benefit of CRT is that they support multiple resolutions natively with no need for upscaling.


Yes, kind of, and in many ways... but not sure if I would call it resolution.
In the one hand, depending how well the ray can be focused the image will be sharper or blurrier.
In the other hand, depending how much the mask blocks the ray you will lose whole parts of the image behind the mask, you still got variation of brightness inside a same phosphorous group, but then they are totally blocked for some time, and then again, this is quite apparent in the small portable CRT from the first video.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Yes, kind of, and in many ways... but not sure if I would call it resolution.
> In the one hand, depending how well the ray can be focused the image will be sharper or blurrier.
> In the other hand, depending how much the mask blocks the ray you will lose whole parts of the image behind the mask, you still got variation of brightness inside a same phosphorous group, but then they are totally blocked for some time, and then again, this is quite apparent in the small portable CRT from the first video.


A Sony PVM doesn't use a Shadow Mask, it uses an Apature Grill, more of the electron beam can pass through. Resolution is how much picture information it can resolve. Everything you read about the topic refers to it as resolution.

And adjusting the focus of a electron gun isn't enough to make it sharper. I've seen a lower TV line PVM, and a Higher Line PVM, as well as a cheapo consumer set all adjusted to get the best focus performance and you still cant make a cheapo consumer set look as sharp as a high end PVM. There's visible difference even on mid range PVM's and high end PVM's even though they both use the same aperture grill technology.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Yes, kind of, and in many ways... but not sure if I would call it resolution.
> In the one hand, depending how well the ray can be focused the image will be sharper or blurrier.
> In the other hand, depending how much the mask blocks the ray you will lose whole parts of the image behind the mask, you still got variation of brightness inside a same phosphorous group, but then they are totally blocked for some time, and then again, this is quite apparent in the small portable CRT from the first video.


This thread goes into alot more technical detail.
What determines the horizontal resolution is the bandwidth and signal fidelity of the tuner, filters, and amplifiers. Even though they say it doesn't have resolution per se they still refer to it as resolution in their following examples, since it's much easier to convey that way.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/proje...zontal-and-vertical-resolution-of-a-crt-tube/


Honestly CRT's are a pain compared to Digital Displays. They are Analogue so they need so many physical components just to get the picture to look good enough, to resize it, getting geometry good. They are very flickery displaying interlaced signals. They need a warm up time of at least 30 min before they can be worked on so that colors can settle in, flat panels warm up instantly. Need to be calibrated constantly because the colors drift, high end monitors have to incorporate components to reduce this somewhat. Even the Earths magnetic field can mess with the picture so they need to be degaussed regularly. I can see why they were replaced with flat panel PVMs, less of a hassle, and they outperform CRTs by supporting 4k, wider color gamuts, and HDR.


----------



## ourobus (Feb 18, 2020)

As someone who owns and actively uses both a PVM-20M4U and a PVM-20L5 with SCART or Component for all my retro consoles, I definitely think CRTs are worth it, at least if you can get something in the 800-1000TVL range with RGB support. I also have a Framemeister that I've used on my HDTV and it doesn't even compare to using RGB on a either of my PVMs. In my opinion, it's really one of those things you'd have to see in person to really choose if it's worth it or not to you. I also owned a KV-27FS100L consumer Trinitron at one point that I used a SCART to Component transcoder and/or Component for and that doesn't even really compare to the higher linecount PVMs and BVMs in terms of sharpness and/or colordepth. For the record, I also have a friend that owns a BVM-D24 and that thing is even nicer visually speaking, those go for almost $3,000 at this point, whereas monitors like what I own are still expensive, albeit cheaper. A 20M4U goes for around $800 at this point and for a 20L5 you'll probably be looking at over $1,000.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

ourobus said:


> As someone who owns and actively uses both a PVM-20M4U and a PVM-20L5 with SCART or Component for all my retro consoles, I definitely think CRTs are worth it, at least if you can get something in the 800-1000TVL range with RGB support. I also have a Framemeister that I've used on my HDTV and it doesn't even compare to using RGB on a either of my PVMs. In my opinion, it's really one of those things you'd have to see in person to really choose if it's worth it or not to you. I also owned a KV-27FS100L consumer Trinitron at one point that I used a SCART to Component transcoder and/or Component for and that doesn't even really compare to the higher linecount PVMs and BVMs in terms of sharpness and/or colordepth. For the record, I also have a friend that owns a BVM-D24 and that thing is even nicer visually speaking, those go for almost $3,000 at this point, whereas monitors like what I own are still expensive, albeit cheaper. A 20M4U goes for around $800 at this point and for a 20L5 you'll probably be looking at over $1,000.


I have the BVM D20F1U considered the best 4:3 CRT ever made. Picture quality wise the PVM 20L5 and the BVM D20F1U are about the same, but the BVM has more features.

It is a sight to be hold looking at the picture on one of these. In terms of clarity, detail and colors.

$3,000 is alot, but a small fraction of what they originally cost. There is a video by retrotech and price for the BVM D20F1U was around $13,000. The D24E1WU was $24,000. And the D32E1WU was $39,000 when they sold New in 2000's.


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Feb 18, 2020)

SG854 said:


> TV lines measures the Horizontal Resolution not the vertical. It's based on the number of Black and White Vertical Lines. An 800 TV line CRT has 400 White Lines and 400 Black lines. The more vertical lines that are stacked side by side from left to right the more resolution and detail it can resolve horizontally. This is why when you look at the HR label on the front of a PVM it shows vertical lines. And the HR symbol is talking about TV lines.
> 
> I mean to say number of lines stacked vertically. Vertical Resolution is measured by the number of Scanning Lines, the 480, from 640x480 resolution. There are 480 horizontal scanning lines stacked on top of each other vertically from top to bottom and is the measured vertical resolution.
> 
> ...


I see now it's common practice, and it's obviously doable by testing with examples such as that svg picture you sent me in the second post. But that's still different from actually measuring horizontal resolution, which is not really possible due to the analog nature of the signal. That's why you'll see round hundreds for the values, it's not that accurate of a process (and it's still limited by the signal). But I stand corrected anyway regarding the terminology, they do seem to refer mostly to horizontal resolution when they say "TV lines".


----------



## isoboy (Feb 18, 2020)

Emulators and/or mister fpga and filters are more than good enough.


----------



## ourobus (Feb 18, 2020)

SG854 said:


> I have the BVM D20F1U considered the best 4:3 CRT ever made. Picture quality wise the PVM 20L5 and the BVM D20F1U are about the same, but the BVM has more features.
> 
> It is a sight to be hold looking at the picture on one of these. In terms of clarity, detail and colors.
> 
> $3,000 is alot, but a small fraction of what they originally cost. There is a video by retrotech and price for the BVM D20F1U was around $13,000. The D24E1WU was $24,000. And the D32E1WU was $39,000 when they sold New in 2000's.



This is all correct, not bad on getting a BVM-D20 hopefully you got lucky like me and got in on buying before the prices inflated horribly (when I bought mine 20M4Us were going for around $400 and 20L5s were around $800). I actually met Steve btw, the dude from Retro Tech, really cool guy. He in person repaired a PVM-14L5 for the same buddy I mentioned that has the BVM-D24.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 18, 2020)

ourobus said:


> This is all correct, not bad on getting a BVM-D20 hopefully you got lucky like me and got in on buying before the prices inflated horribly (when I bought mine 20M4Us were going for around $400 and 20L5s were around $800). I actually met Steve btw, the dude from Retro Tech, really cool guy. He in person repaired a PVM-14L5 for the same buddy I mentioned that has the BVM-D24.


That's cool you met Steve, been watching his videos for a while. Ya prices have gone up as a bunch of gamers been snatching them up and are becoming harder to find. 

Quality wise 20L5 and D20 uses the same picture tube. The 800 to 900 line difference is all marketing by Sony to stretch the truth. They both have the same number of TV lines. That's why people don't see a big difference between the two. Theres a retro  Retro RGB Video that talks about this. Kind of like super high contrast ratios TV manufacturers over inflate today. There is a clear difference though between the 800 and 600 line PVMs since they use a different tube, 800 being sharper. The D20 though has more features and better convergence adjustment then the L5. Its basically the premium of the 20L5 but picture quality wise they are the same. They are both the best 4:3 CRTs ever made.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 20, 2020)

I voted yes

For a good quality CRT. If it's a CRT of lower quality then no. I've been spoiled by Pro Monitors. After using CRT's coming from an LCD all of the weaknesses of a CRT that you don't worry about with an LCD become apparent. Blooming, Convergence, Magnets (In External Speakers), ect.

Pro Monitors corrects for all these weaknesses. And Composite video is horrible. I do not care if games were designed with composite and CRT weaknesses in mind to create dithering or transparency. The cleaner image is a much better experience for me.

A really good Flat Panel and upscaler can get the job done really well. And is an excellent option for getting games to look their best. But I still prefer a high quality CRT.

@ourobus
I found the video, a Retired Sony Tech that know these things inside out talks about it at around 43:06.  For the 20 inch Tubes, The PVM 20M4, PVM 20L5, BVM 20F1, BVM 20E1, BVM D20F1, BVM A20F1. They all use the same picture tube, and you can swap them out for one another, and you won't notice a difference in picture. And for the BVM 20E1 it never had 1,000 TV lines. That's just advertising by Sony.

The BVM D32 is the only CRT that I know of that can have perfect convergence. You can adjust it dot by dot and get it perfect.

It also has a White Uniformity Board and Deflection Board that you can use to adjust the white linearity and beam landing zone by zone to correct for any color shift that happens at different parts of the screen that is caused by the Earths Magnetic field, depending on which direction the monitor is facing, North, West, East or South.

From the High Quality SMPTE C Phosphors, to not blooming and distorting when displaying a bright scene, and all the adjustments you can make to correct for CRT's weaknesses these pro monitors are an amazing piece of engineered technology. I'm just so spoiled by them I can't go back to a consumer set.


----------



## WarioWaffles (Feb 20, 2020)

It felt worth it on my old CRT, made the mistake of storing it when I saw a bigger one but the damn thing has horrible colors I think something's gone bad cuz changing the settings does little to help. Now the damn paperweight just sits there since I lack the motivation to swap the monstrosity.


----------



## ourobus (Feb 20, 2020)

@SG854
Interesting, sucks to know that they embellished the truth a tad about the tv lines on some of the higher-end monitors. I have heard that the D32 has some really cool specific features that I think only ever made it into some of the A series BVMs other than it. But the A series monitors don't have native SCART inputs, which is a big negative. Other than the feature you mentioned, I heard that on the D32 and the A series BVMs you can see the overall use hours and tube use hours separately.


----------



## horokeusama (Feb 20, 2020)

Well, the IDEAL solution for me right now would be to use a framemeister or a OSSC solution, but they're really expensive to the point it's just easier to have a small 14'' CRT on my desk and play old games on it.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 20, 2020)

ourobus said:


> @SG854
> Interesting, sucks to know that they embellished the truth a tad about the tv lines on some of the higher-end monitors. I have heard that the D32 has some really cool specific features that I think only ever made it into some of the A series BVMs other than it. But the A series monitors don't have native SCART inputs, which is a big negative. Other than the feature you mentioned, I heard that on the D32 and the A series BVMs you can see the overall use hours and tube use hours separately.


The input cards on the A series are extremely rare, I heard estimates of about 500 made. They rarely pop up and when they do the sell for thousands. It's probably better to swap out the tube from the A series into a D series, since those cards for that series are more readily available and alot cheaper around $150.

The BVMs have a stand by mode, mostly because it takes a CRT about 30 min to warm up to reach peak color performance. So instead of turning it off you put it in stand by when not using it, and take it out of stand by when using it and dont have to wait for it to warm up since it's already warmed up, and it'll be ready to go right away. So it logs crt use hours and time on hours separate.


----------



## playstays_shun (Mar 5, 2020)

I recently got a 14" Sony PVM, not RGB-able out of the box but has two s-video inputs.

Not regretting it at all, didn't want to go much bigger for convenience reasons and didn't spend a ton nor did I want to to get started down this rabbit hole

I think its good to have options for the old stuff. Its a 500 TVL tube, and looks great with my non-rgb 64

I have a retrotink that has no lag at that part in the chain, but truly no latency from the tv processing the signal is a sight to behold in some situations

I will use it with my Saturn and PS2 as well and maybe my GC sometimes which has been sitting around for a while


----------



## supernintendo128 (Mar 6, 2020)

If you can find a cheap one at a flea market and have the space for one, go right ahead.


----------



## Sizednochi (Mar 6, 2020)

I voted yes, but even for my old consoles I don't have CRTs anymore. I recognize they are awesome though. I just don't have the space. I use a Dell 2007FPB Monitor with S-video cables.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 9, 2020)

playstays_shun said:


> I recently got a 14" Sony PVM, not RGB-able out of the box but has two s-video inputs.
> 
> Not regretting it at all, didn't want to go much bigger for convenience reasons and didn't spend a ton nor did I want to to get started down this rabbit hole
> 
> ...


S-Video still looks great on a PVM. At 500 lines it's still better then many consumer sets minus the High End Consumer CRT TV's with Component.

That rabbit hole is deep and I think it's not worth getting a high end pro monitor unless you have lots of cash. Most people will be very satisfied with a Mid Range PVM or a high quality low latency upscaler with a low input lag flat panel. At the prices high end pro crt monitors are selling for you can instead get a high end flat panel tv that doesn't suffer from the flat low contrast look lower end LCD's have and also get 4k with excellent hdr. And at 4k is where Scanlines filters start to look really good.


----------



## Chary (Mar 9, 2020)

I very much enjoyed having a CRT, but since I lost it in the hurricane, I don’t mind not having one. I appreciate it for the perceived lower input delay and the more “proper” visuals, but I’m fine with emulating games these days, just for the ease of it all. If I happen to stumble into a decent CRT for an okay price one day, I might consider picking one up. But I won’t actively seek one out. I have the space for one, but imagining the effort of hauling one home and putting it in my room? Ehhh...


----------



## SG854 (Mar 9, 2020)

Chary said:


> I very much enjoyed having a CRT, but since I lost it in the hurricane, I don’t mind not having one. I appreciate it for the perceived lower input delay and the more “proper” visuals, but I’m fine with emulating games these days, just for the ease of it all. If I happen to stumble into a decent CRT for an okay price one day, I might consider picking one up. But I won’t actively seek one out. I have the space for one, but imagining the effort of hauling one home and putting it in my room? Ehhh...


20 inches is the sweet spot for size and weight. The bigger ones weigh more than 200 pounds. They are a beast to carry. But bigger is better especially when lots of people are playing multiplayer on a CRT, instead of squinting on a smaller 20 inch at a distance. That's another negative of a CRT.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 9, 2020)

If you get one for free? Sure. If you feel the need to pay more than 100 bucks for it? Pretty much never


----------



## playstays_shun (Mar 9, 2020)

SG854 said:


> S-Video still looks great on a PVM. At 500 lines it's still better then many consumer sets minus the High End Consumer CRT TV's with Component.
> 
> That rabbit hole is deep and I think it's not worth getting a high end pro monitor unless you have lots of cash. Most people will be very satisfied with a Mid Range PVM or a high quality low latency upscaler with a low input lag flat panel. At the prices high end pro crt monitors are selling for you can instead get a high end flat panel tv that doesn't suffer from the flat low contrast look lower end LCD's have and also get 4k with excellent hdr. And at 4k is where Scanlines filters start to look really good.



yeah for me its the perfect set up. I'm loving it, I'm not really left wondering 'what if I pour more cash in' and I don't have to worry about flushing my investment down the tube if it goes out for whatever reason

just plain old, simple happy



Clydefrosch said:


> If you get one for free? Sure. If you feel the need to pay more than 100 bucks for it? Pretty much never



After shipping I paid a hair over $100 (~$120) for my 14" PVM and I'm happy for the rate these things are going for and the size/quality/price ratio. But I probably would never spend >$100 for a consumer CRT, and do local pickup only. I probably also wouldn't pay >$100 for an 8" PVM with any features just because even though they're 'cute' its pretty limiting, novelty aside 

I could wait indefinitely for a better deal, or I could just dive in and be done with it. Went with the latter.


----------



## RyRyIV (Mar 23, 2020)

I was able to pick up a really nice CRT from work for absolutely free, that I just need an S-Video cable to get my games hooked up into on. From what I've seen my coworker play on his same CRT, I'm really excited to dive into this rabbit hole, and this thread helped with that immensly.


----------

