For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

[momaka]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

May be. It is less obvious on LCDs actually because they transfer the signal back to digital, but I could tell difference between analog and digital just fine on Radeon 9700 with 1m+ TV.

Well I also used that video card to drive both my 21" Dell D1626HT and the FW900. The D1626HT looked very sharp as usual, even all the way down to 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz, which is it's max resolution and refresh rate. The FW900 looked blurry, but that's the FW900's fault - either the flyback or the tube is starting to go bad . I've used different video cards to drive all of these devices as well, namely a GeForce 6200 and a Radeon 9700. At least on analog input, I didn't see any difference.

I mentioned in another thread that my laptop's VGA output looks horrible on a CRT monitor, but not on an LCD. The picture is blurry and extremely bright, dark objects are too dark, and light objects are too light.

I'm not familiar with Win 7 that much, but a friend of my roommate tried my 17" Dell Trinitron on his laptop and it looked alright until he changed some setting in the display properties (I didn't really notice which). After that the image on the CRT became kind of like you described and even standard 4:3 resolutions were not displaying properly (not stretching all the way up on the screen). So it could be a settings issue. You may also have to play with the brightness/contrast and color temperature (if your monitor has this option) to get it to look right.

[lti]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

The old Compaq V55 monitors looked the worst on Matrox cards. Those monitors were extremely blurry on every video card, but whatever Matrox card Compaq was using in the Deskpro EN (designed for Windows 95, but used a Pentium II) made them almost unusable.

I mentioned in another thread that my laptop's VGA output looks horrible on a CRT monitor, but not on an LCD. The picture is blurry and extremely bright, dark objects are too dark, and light objects are too light.

The only CRT monitor I still have is the 15" Sony with a maximum resolution of 1024x768.

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

May be. It is less obvious on LCDs actually because they transfer the signal back to digital, but I could tell difference between analog and digital just fine on Radeon 9700 with 1m+ TV.

[momaka]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Fact is, almost everything from that time is blurred like hell even on my Dell P1130 at say 1600x1200.

Not so sure about that. I've used my Radeon 7200 to drive a big 40" LCD TV running at 1920x1080, and there was no blurriness at all. I would have noticed it if there was any because of the large screen size. Same when I hooked it up to a 26" Westinghouse LCD monitor running at 1920x1080 again.

1920x1080 is the max resolution that the Radeon 7200 supports. But maybe it's just a decent old video card?

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

momaka: from my experience all the cards from that times but Matrox sucked. It did not matter as not many ppl had displays capable of such resolution. Later it got better (without any word that they ever improved the filters ), maybe some other things got better (the actual RAMDACs?), who knows. People started using LCDs where it did not matter that much, although with DVI there has been some improvement. Question is if anybody ever compared card with good analog output and card with bad output on LCD Or whether they just all said D-Sub is crap and DVI is way superior every time…cause there may be cards where even using D-Sub on high resolution the LCD image may actually be good.

Fact is, almost everything from that time is blurred like hell even on my Dell P1130 at say 1600x1200. Similar problem with e.g. Compaq DC7700p desktop. With for example Radeon X1950XT it was just fine (actually with two such displays both at 1920x1440 ). Now I have the Philips on HD 6670 with DVI>D-Sub adapter and it is godo as well.

ADD// I have just recently acquired active adapter from DisplayPort to D-Sub but it is too wide and I cannot squeeze it next to DVI>-D-Sub adapter so I have to buy DP extender first (I need jsut 10 cm but shortest are 2 meters, isnt it just great?). Curious on how the image will look like.

[Hemingray]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Now I gotta get out my best CRT monitor (19" NEC Multisync) and see what that beast can do.

[momaka]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Yeaaah, FW900 is nice, but it is wide so thank you very much. I'll sick with my 4:3 ratio

What's wrong with 16:10? I don't mind the FW900 for doing work. And for movies and games, it's wicked!

Have you tried to remove output filter on graphics card under the A4032A?

Nope. I never even though that could be the issue. I have tried several different video cards, though, and they all yield the same result, so I am almost certain it's the monitor.

It actually helps more than just sometimes. Just remove SMD ceramics and inductors (bridge them with solder or a tiny piece of wire) on RGB signal paths, it's directly next to D-Sub.

Interesting. I might try it next summer when I'm there (at my grandmother's house) if I have time. I'll probably try it on my S3 Savage 4 video card, though. The Radeon 7200 I have in that computer currently is too nice to mess with IMO. (For an old P3 computer, anyways.)

It is supposed to remove some electromagnetic noise, but who the hell cares when the CRT itselfs radiates like 100000times more?

I think they are there to protect the computer from external EMI rather than the outside from the computer EMI. But like you said, who cares .

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Yeaaah, FW900 is nice, but it is wide so thank you very much. I'll sick with my 4:3 ratio

Have you tried to remove output filter on graphics card under the A4032A? It actually helps more than just sometimes. Just remove SMD ceramics and inductors (bridge them with solder or a tiny piece of wire) on RGB signal paths, it's directly next to D-Sub. It is supposed to remove some electromagnetic noise, but who the hell cares when the CRT itselfs radiates like 100000times more?

[momaka]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Whooo how's that I haven't noticed this thread before?

Better late then never. Welcome to the CRT monitor freak club .

Anyway, guys, I don't want to touch your feelings or be rude or something. But the reality is, if you run some 20" LCD and think what miracle you got, let me tell you you only got piece of shit. High-quality flat 22"+ CRT with resolution such high as 1920x1440 is not to be compared with anything on the current market besides the 2560x1440 displays which cost fortune and still are shit ratio.

+1
I can't stand the contrast of LCDs, especially cheap LCDs (Chi Mei anyone?). No matter how nice and big they are, I can still see the backlight bleeding through and the other thing that annoys me is the black levels. Wait, what black levels? - there are none on a LCD.

Biggest CRT I've ever owned was a HP 17". I never ran it past 1024x768. It would run up to something like 1600x1200, but I could hardly read anything with it that high. Eventually, I ended up getting my hands on a few cheap and free LCDs, and never looked back.

I think that's why you hate CRT monitors so much. If you ever saw some 21" CRTs, you wouldn't use anything else. Even some 19" CRTs can be pretty decent too. And then there's the king of all: the 24" GDM-FW900. I consider myself absolutely lucky to own one (2 actually, but 1 is dead). It's capable of the high resolutions of modern LCDs and has great colors like any CRT.

I see. I can tell 75 Hz too by peripheral vision, but starting from 85 Hz it is fine for me.

Same here. 75 Hz I can usually tell with peripheral vision, but above that it's fine. I run all of my CRTs at 85 Hz now, except for the HP A4032A in this post. That one I actually just got it running at 75 Hz last summer. Had to use PowerStrip for that. I think I tried it even all the way up to 85 Hz, but the picture got too blurry (it's an old Trinitron from 1994 so give it a break). All of this is at 1024x768 resolution, by the way. Most people find that resolution too small, but I like it. Even started running my 21" Dell D1626HT at 1024x768. Although I am slightly near-sighted, I can read text on it just fine even from over a meter away. And it looks sharp. Do that with a large LCD and you get a horrible blurry mess of pixels.

By the way, I might be getting another SyncMaster 955DF this weekend .

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

I see. I can tell 75 Hz too by peripheral vision, but starting from 85 Hz it is fine for me. Great about CRTs is that you can run them anywhere from 320x240 to their max and the image is still great (if you have VGA output without filtering caps and inductors which in 80 % cases are responsible for blurring higher resolutions) and you also get much higher resfresh rate. I can get 200 Hz at 800x600, which I do sometimes shile playing Baldur's gate and such games

[mariushm]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Which one is that, is it the T57?

Yes, I have the T57s.

It was bought by a friend of mine at photography school second hand, I bought it from him and used it for a few years while I was a student.
It probably had some fixes (refurbished by the store technicians that brought the truck-full of monitors to sell here) but while I had it the geometry was ok.
Only towards the end of me using it, on high resolutions it wasn't that great anymore.

I'm really not interested in using it anymore, and here, people aren't interested in them even if I put ad in newspapers to get it for free, they're just too heavy at 20+ kilos.

In my case, unfortunately I have problems with one of my eyes, even had surgery on it. I can see reasonably well with that eye, with the other I can see almost perfectly so my brain got used to it and "repairs" the not so good information it gets so I can see perfectly on the LCD screens.. However, due to the differences between eyes, I'm really sensitive to flicker from refresh rates..

So the 24" lcd monitors are awesome, really dig the resolution, and being lcd's refresh rate isn't a problem. I couldn't handle the refresh rates of crt monitors these days.

I do want to make a sort of teardown video, i'm going to save some electronics if they're worth it and throw the tube to trash, and I'm probably gonna finally see if they actually did some fixes on the boards... but when i'm gonna get around to do it, I really don't know.

ps. as for video cards, the first I personally owned was an s3 trio 3d card... upgraded that to s3 savage 3d, then s3 savage 4 (both these savage cards died within weeks of purchase with bios corruption), then nvidia vanta, then ati radeon 9200 which I think i still have in my parents' computer.
But while i was a student, i did work with some servers that had trident isa video cards, a cirrus logic card on pci that I still have in my box of parts, I think even some tseng labs based video card that was in a server i decommissioned.

[lti]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

(2MB S3 ViRGE for the... loss)

I still have one of those. It sucks.

You need a Compaq V55 monitor to go with it. Those monitors really sucked.

I can run my old K6-2 system with an SiS 5598 chipset at 1280x1024, and it still performs better than some newer computers (like my parents' computer with a GeForce 4 graphics card) at that resolution. It only supports 16-bit color and 60Hz refresh rate at that resolution.

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

This Eizo I know I ran it up to 2048x1536 ("officially" it can do 1920x1200) but it's painful to use it like that, too low refresh, too small pixels, and mine is not exactly 100% geometrically accurate after so many years of usage.

Which one is that, is it the T57? I have similar looking at home. All of these can do 2048x1536, they just don't have it in EDID so I had to buy PowerStrip. Usually they do 1920x1440 at 85 Hz (that's why I also run them at this resolution ).

And as for the geeometry, you can correct most of that in settings if the cirtcuitry inside is not deteriorating itself.

Anyway, guys, I don't want to touch your feelings or be rude or something. But the reality is, if you run some 20" LCD and think what miracle you got, let me tell you you only got piece of shit. High-quality flat 22"+ CRT with resolution such high as 1920x1440 is not to be compared with anything on the current market besides the 2560x1440 displays which cost fortune and still are shit ratio.

[Phaihn]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

I had a Flat 18inch Samsung SyncMaster CRT till I got a 19inch Samsung SyncMaster LCD.

[mariushm]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

The first monitor I've owned was an Aoc 15" one, which was running natively at 1024x768 75 Hz I think ... my parents were poor at the time so I couldn't ask for much better monitor.
I think it was running up to 1600x1200 at 60 hz, but I didn't keep it as such resolution.

For a very short time, I had a Phillips Brilliance 17" or 19" monitor, that was like a mercedes vs ford compared to the Aoc, it was downright beautiful. I didn't dare to mess with it - the owner of the company I bought the computer from gave it to use until the Aoc he ordered was to arrive at the store.

While I was a student, I had an IBM P7.. something but I really don't know what I did with it, I probably sold it when I got the Eizo Flexscan t57s that's sitting under my desk now.

This Eizo I know I ran it up to 2048x1536 ("officially" it can do 1920x1200) but it's painful to use it like that, too low refresh, too small pixels, and mine is not exactly 100% geometrically accurate after so many years of usage.



Nowadays I have two 24" lcds on my screen, one with 1920x1200 the other one with 1920x1080 ... no more eye squinting and messing with making custom monitor drivers.

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

You are using wrong resolutions for 4:3 ratio. It's 640x480 (not 400) and 1400x1050 (not 1680).

[Heihachi_73]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Back in the old days (2006), I ran a 17" Acer monitor at 1152x864, as my onboard graphics card didn't support 1280x960 (I refused to use 1024p on a 4:3 monitor, and higher sizes caused fonts to become too small). Prior to that it was 1024x768x24 (i810 chipset) on my HP 1.2GHz Celeron, and 800x600x24 on my Packard Bell Pentium 166 (2MB S3 ViRGE for the... loss). Yes, both of those only went to a 24-bit graphics mode rather than 32-bit.

Eventually I upgraded to a 16:10 Hisense HDTV, which was previously left in storage after the cat tripped on the aerial cable, ripping it out and leaving a nice hole in the RF modulator box; the whole connector ripped clean off the PCB. Said TV died recently due to bloated Samxon caps in the PSU.

My trash-find 17" LG Studioworks monitor has no trouble with 1680x1050, despite being a 4:3 CRT which is probably over ten years old. By contrast (and ironically, note my first sentence), I'm currently stuck with a 1280x1024 LG Flatron L1710M, which goes out of range and blanks itself during the entire boot process, even if you go into the BIOS/CMOS setup (and works again when the Windows XP logo shows up), yet has no trouble with 720x400 when I full-screen a cmd window. Strangely, 640x400 ends up letterboxed rather than stretched to fit, despite 720x400 being full screen as mentioned; 640x400 works perfectly on each CRT I've tested.

[larrymoencurly]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Intentionally? I had some monitors without digital controls show two narrow pictures, side by side, until I reset the screen resolution in Windows. How long can CRT monitors stand that?

[c_hegge]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Biggest CRT I've ever owned was a HP 17". I never ran it past 1024x768. It would run up to something like 1600x1200, but I could hardly read anything with it that high. Eventually, I ended up getting my hands on a few cheap and free LCDs, and never looked back.

[Behemot]

Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

Whooo how's that I haven't noticed this thread before?

Having 22" biggies lately with some kind of Trinitron every time. Currently have Philips Brilliance 202P4, runing at 1920x1440x85 Hz