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

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    About 2 week ago, I got back from my grandmother's countryside house where I have the HP A4032A (Sony Trinitron M41KKA16X) 17" CRT monitor so I finally had some time to play around with it (I've been there without internet for 2 weeks - and I survived! ). It turns out, that monitor is not locked at 800x600 resolution as I though. In fact, I ran it all the way up to 1280x960. According to monitorworld.com, the max resolution for this monitor is 1280x1024. I didn't try it that high though, since it's a 4:3 monitor. There wasn't a point to it anyways - the monitor became very blurry just at 1280x960, but that's due to horizontal convergence issues, though, so I don't blame it. After all, I bought that monitor used about 5 years ago (it cost me all of 50 Euros) and the condition I got it in was far from perfect - there are 2 cracks in the plastic casing near the rear and also some spilled coffee in that area. Moreover, this monitor was built in 1994/1995 so who knows what it has gone through. I wouldn't be surprised if I am the 3rd or 4th owner. It's made in Japan, though, so it will probably last for quite a while.

    Unfortunately, this monitor has many other problems besides the convergence (which all I can do about is adjust it so that it's either good in the center and really bad in the corners or blurry in the center and less blurry in the corners. The top-right corner is always pretty bad, though. This problem is less evident on lower resolutions.)

    One of the other major problems is that it has uneven brightness - it's normal on the left side but gets progressively brighter towards the right and then for the last 2 to 3 cm on the right, it gets back to normal. There are also two light vertical lines - one about 1 cm thick on the left side (about 8 cm from the left edge of the screen) and one slightly curvy line, less than 1 cm thick but to the right side of the screen (same distance from the edge). You can see it on the picture I attached. It's actually worse than the picture shows, but my camera isn't that sensitive. I tried degaussing it both with the built-in degauss and manually (using 2 magnets on a drill), but that did not have any effect on the issue. So I wonder if it's the caps in the signal board or cheap BNC cable parhaps. The BNC cable looks nice and thick but I don't see any inductors on it on either end. Any ideas?

    Among other issues, the top-left corner (and only that corner) of the screen is slightly curved in. It can't be adjusted.
    The brightness also changes at different resolutions - at 1024x768 it looks much brighter than at 800x600 and 640x480 (therefore I have to change the brightness when I play games).
    And the tube has a slightly reddish tint, even at the brightest (bluest) color temperature. This I've corrected through the ATI Catalyst adjustments, though. But I guess the tube is just getting a bit tired now. It's still plenty bright, nonetheless.

    And last but not least, I still can't get the refresh rate to go higher than 60 Hz. I don't know if this is because I'm using a BNC cable or what, but it's very annoying. I think it has to do with the fact that the monitor cannot get recognized in Windows. When I click on the scroll-down menu for the available refresh rates, I get everything from 40 Hz interlaced to 200 Hz (and I get this on all resolutions I've tried). Moreover, I get every imaginable resolution available in the settings tab - so obviously Windows doesn't know what monitor it's outputting to. I tried setting the monitor as Plug-and-Play rather than have it appear as a Default monitor, but that made no difference at all.
    So basically I'm stuck in 60 Hz mode. That's actually the biggest annoyance because my eyes get tired much faster. The flicker on this monitor isn't as bad as on other monitors (probably longer phosphor persistence), but it's still quite noticeable. If I could get this issue fixed, though, it would be a very fine monitor. In fact, even with all of these issues above, I still like it very much. The contrast on this Sony tube is, so far, one of the better (if not best) I've seen. I can turn down the brightness so the black appears truly black, and yet the white will still be blindingly-bright. It makes even old games look very nice as if they had HDR.

    Like Th3_uN1Qu3, I'll probably be running this monitor for the next 10 years as well.
    Here's a picture of it running:
    https://www.badcaps.net/forum/attach...7&d=1315008911
    Attached Files
    Last edited by momaka; 09-02-2011, 07:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Th3_uN1Qu3
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    I'm back... I can confirm 100% now that i have a CRT signal board issue on my IBM P275. The picture gets progressively blurrier as the refresh rate gets higher. This explains 100% how i now get clearer text at 1400x1050 85Hz than i got at 1280x1024 100Hz. If i lower the refresh rate further it'll get even better, but unfortunately my eyes don't agree with it.

    I know this can also be a phosphor phenomenon, but it wouldn't be this bad. Combined with the jittery everything (that gets progressively better the longer the monitor is on), i know what i'm looking at. I don't know if i'll fix it this summer because i'll have to go home earlier coz i failed some exams and i need to study and take them again... but i'll be getting a 22" Dell to toy with at home (it has the classic G2 overvoltage problem, needs reprogrammed using service cable and WinDAS), so i'll go tweaking that one and get some answers. And yes that'll be a big beast of a monitor.

    Unless something markedly better comes up on the market, you'll still see me running those big tubes 10 years from now.
    Last edited by Th3_uN1Qu3; 07-31-2011, 05:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ratdude747
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    Originally posted by momaka
    Yes, definitely.
    You may also need to manually install the monitor driver.

    I have a really old HP A4032A 17" monitor that only has BNC inputs and I can't get it past 800x600 @ 60Hz. I don't know if it's the monitor itself (it's a Trinitron tube) or because I don't have the driver for it (it appears as Plug-and-Play monitor). Any ideas?
    when used on the vga cable it works great... so i doubt its a driver issue.

    my guess is the cable I have is a pro BNC style vga to composite cable... I did get the samsung and an EEE pc to communicate with that cable without issues... who knows?

    since the cable is selling for $30, it must be good for something?

    Leave a comment:


  • Agent24
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    You don't need the monitor driver usually, you should be able to force the display to whatever you want using your video card drivers.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by ratdude747
    maybe I also need a cable with h and v sync?
    Yes, definitely.
    You may also need to manually install the monitor driver.

    I have a really old HP A4032A 17" monitor that only has BNC inputs and I can't get it past 800x600 @ 60Hz. I don't know if it's the monitor itself (it's a Trinitron tube) or because I don't have the driver for it (it appears as Plug-and-Play monitor). Any ideas?

    Leave a comment:


  • ratdude747
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    i used my dell latitude d400 to test... even 800x600 @ 65 hz caused errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Agent24
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    Maybe you were just running it too high?

    Leave a comment:


  • ratdude747
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    the mitsubishi accepted it but it would frequently complain of out of range signals and when it didn't the image wasn't rendered as a still image... maybe I also need a cable with h and v sync?

    Leave a comment:


  • ratdude747
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    the bnc to vga cable is hp branded... only six pins on the vga end (3 signal, 3 ground?). i assume it's a good cable?

    edit- the monitor no longer likes the cable... it doesn't detect anything on the bnc when I conenct that and only that.

    my dad's mitsubishi 19" crt has BNC as well... I may test the cable with that.

    the cable is a c2300-60005

    just like this one:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Original-Agilent...#ht_2782wt_956

    is this a good cable?
    Last edited by ratdude747; 07-30-2011, 02:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derek23
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    Originally posted by momaka
    Hmm... The math doesn't quite add up here, though.
    A 17" aperture grille screen at that resolution would require slightly less than 0.17 mm horizontal pitch.

    For the 15" screen, (assuming it's a shadow mask) you're looking at about 0.153 horizontal pitch, which comes out to ~0.177 diagonal pitch. The monitor *must* have been blurry.


    Well it was 0.24 and looked fine in that resolution, xD very sharp image, (though very small text) and further shrinking of the screen due to aspect ratio of 16:9 (this monitor was 4:3), having to reduce height.

    About the 15", yes, it was shadow mask and text looked blurry, though images were more or less fine!

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by ratdude747
    it does have BNC... and I have a bnc to vga cable... is there any benefit to using bnc?
    From what I've heard/read around, if it's a good quality BNC connector, the picture should be better. On small resolutions, it probably doesn't matter that much, though.

    Originally posted by Th3_uN1Qu3
    Just upped the bar a notch on my IBM P275... Switched to 1400x1050 from 1280x1024. I found out that it is actually a 4:3 tube as things looked a little squashed at 1280x1024, comparing it to a LCD which has 1280x1024 native, things look correct at a 4:3 resolution on the IBM.
    I told you so .

    Originally posted by Derek23
    I had in the past a CTX PR705F 17" W/trinitron tube, its max res was 1600x1200@65Hz though I pushed it in 1920x1080@60 Hz, and the text was still sharp
    ...
    I also had a 1999, LG studioworks (I don't remember the model) 15". I pushed it in 1920x1078@50Hz, despite its max res was 1024x768@85Hz, it looked fine except blurrier in the sides and some convergence issues.
    Hmm... The math doesn't quite add up here, though.
    A 17" aperture grille screen at that resolution would require slightly less than 0.17 mm horizontal pitch.

    For the 15" screen, (assuming it's a shadow mask) you're looking at about 0.153 horizontal pitch, which comes out to ~0.177 diagonal pitch. The monitor *must* have been blurry.
    Last edited by momaka; 07-30-2011, 12:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Th3_uN1Qu3
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    Just upped the bar a notch on my IBM P275... Switched to 1400x1050 from 1280x1024. I found out that it is actually a 4:3 tube as things looked a little squashed at 1280x1024, comparing it to a LCD which has 1280x1024 native, things look correct at a 4:3 resolution on the IBM.

    And surprisingly, text looks clearer at 1400x1050. Might have to do with the refresh rate now being 85Hz vs 100Hz tho... I ran 100Hz to keep the TV on the left (i'm in a PAL area so that's 50Hz for you) from interfering with it, but i don't really watch TV anymore so it's not a problem. That's not saying i don't still have to take it apart, as it still has this slight jitter all over, which is the main reason why it looks kinda bad. I'm sure the problem is on the signal board at the back of the tube, because the jitter appears in the OSD as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derek23
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    Originally posted by momaka
    That's like the opposite of what I do here. Normally, I set my resolutions low but at high refresh rates. 17" monitors (both CRT and LCD) I don't like past 1024x768. Even if they remain sharp, things just get too small to see.
    It wasn't that long ago when I was still running 800x600. Unfortunately, there are no web pages nowadays that design for that resolution - hence why I moved up a notch to 1024x768.

    The highest resolution I'm running right now is 1280x960 on my Dell (Sony) Trinitron D1626HT 21" CRT. Max resolution for that monitor is 1600x1200 @85 Hz and it looks fine on it too. I just like big text
    Really i used it normally on 800x600 because of the refresh rate 85 Hz, in 1024x768 it was 65 Hz and cause me headaches. I only changed to 1024x768 when a web page is badly seen on the previous resolution or a program requested to have a higher resolution
    in my 17" one I normally set it on 1152x864@85Hz (unless i see photos or videos, in these cases I set on its max res 1600x1200@65Hz) xD

    Leave a comment:


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

    The highest res I have ever stuck with was 1024x768 on a HP 17" CRT. I did try higher (1280x1024), but it was a case of Can't Read This. On a 15", I never went higher than 800x600

    Leave a comment:


  • ratdude747
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    well, 1080x1024 is the default and lately getting the nvidia linux utility to save things has been a pain.. any higher and it gets a bit blurry and I have to lower the refresh rate. any lower and I lose space. I'll try messign with it again but 1080x1024 on 4:3 screens never seemed to be that bad...

    my video card is a nvidia geforce 7600GT.

    it does have BNC... and I have a bnc to vga cable... is there any benefit to using bnc?

    edit- found the 1280x960 option, that is what i was wanting. my bad on that. the shape of thigns looks more correct... I feel dumb for not noticing this in the past.
    Last edited by ratdude747; 07-26-2011, 11:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Originally posted by Derek23
    I also had a 1999, LG studioworks (I don't remember the model) 15". I pushed it in 1920x1078@50Hz, despite its max res was 1024x768@85Hz, it looked fine except blurrier in the sides and some convergence issues.
    That's like the opposite of what I do here. Normally, I set my resolutions low but at high refresh rates. 17" monitors (both CRT and LCD) I don't like past 1024x768. Even if they remain sharp, things just get too small to see.
    It wasn't that long ago when I was still running 800x600. Unfortunately, there are no web pages nowadays that design for that resolution - hence why I moved up a notch to 1024x768.

    The highest resolution I'm running right now is 1280x960 on my Dell (Sony) Trinitron D1626HT 21" CRT. Max resolution for that monitor is 1600x1200 @85 Hz and it looks fine on it too. I just like big text.

    Originally posted by ratdude747
    I finally got my samsung syncmaster 950p back from my old house...

    It maxes out at 1600x1200 @ 65hz, but I run it at 1280x1024 @ 85hz. 1600x1200 is a tad blurry, even 1280x1024 can be at times... it is a 2001 model.
    950P? I think that's the better version of my SyncMaster 955DF (or at least in some ways). I think you get adjustable color temperature and BNC connectors. If anything, I really dislike the preset color temperatures on my 955DF.
    On the other hand, the 955DF gets 0.20mm horizontal dot pitch vs. 0.22mm for the 950p and also lower power consumption by about 20W.

    As far as resolutions: according to CNET, the max resolution for your 950p should be 1920x1440 @ 64 Hz. That info could be wrong, though, because according to the 950p user manual, max resolution is 1600x1200 and the max refresh rate is either 75 Hz (950p model) or 85HZ (950p plus model). Perhaps your video card wasn't good enough?
    Also, don't run 1280x1024 - that's a 5:4 resolution and you have a 4:3 monitor.

    Originally posted by kc8adu
    almost forgot my 29" barco.2470 something x 1900 something.nonstandard.had a color calibration camera.
    Nice!

    Leave a comment:


  • kc8adu
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    almost forgot my 29" barco.2470 something x 1900 something.nonstandard.had a color calibration camera.
    a guy at a local graphic arts place had me on site fixing a blown up plc in a giant film scanner.i saw his and stated i had got one like it in a load of surplus.said he wanted a few more but could not find them.he paid $1250.00 for his and said he would pay that for mine.well most of the playing i got to do with it was setting it up to match his!
    damm those things are huge and heavy!
    but great image quality.

    Leave a comment:


  • ratdude747
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    I finally got my samsung syncmaster 950p back from my old house...

    It maxes out at 1600x1200 @ 65hz, but I run it at 1280x1024 @ 85hz. 1600x1200 is a tad blurry, even 1280x1024 can be at times... it is a 2001 model.

    it also has an ever so slight case of burn in... the old owner must have used win 2k.

    I have a ctx at my old house (20" monster). didn't know it might have a trinitron tube... it has an issue with the vga plug that I have been unable to fix (pin pushed in connector). next time i am up there I might try to work with it...
    Last edited by ratdude747; 07-25-2011, 01:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derek23
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    Originally posted by Th3_uN1Qu3
    HD on a 17" was kinda pushing it... As for the other one, 50Hz? Were you using it as a TV or something? I have a 14" Daewoo sitting around here, and it can only take 1024x768 at 56Hz. It's unbearable.

    Yeah I used the Nvidia Custom resolution thing, one day I was bored and played to get the highest res before the monitor shut down and I got 1920x1078@50 Hz with the 15" thing, I tested only for seconds because the 50Hz flickering was very nasty lol, however with the 17" I could use it for view high res photos or videos because 60Hz was more tolerable

    that 14" have a 800x600 max res? I use that on the 15" because the CRT tube was worn or something that the sides of the screen were blurred despite adjusting the focus pot
    Last edited by Derek23; 07-25-2011, 05:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Th3_uN1Qu3
    replied
    Re: For the CRT monitor freaks - highest resolution you ran on your tube?

    HD on a 17" was kinda pushing it... As for the other one, 50Hz? Were you using it as a TV or something? I have a 14" Daewoo sitting around here, and it can only take 1024x768 at 56Hz. It's unbearable.

    Btw, ipman said his monitor is not for sale. Howver, someone tipped me off about a 22" Trinitron that he had for a few years and couldn't fix (typical failure, G2 gets turned up by the image restoration function till you get a very bright picture with retrace lines even at zero brightness). That needs to be adjusted in the firmware with WinDAS and a serial to TTL cable, because those monitors have no G2 pot on the flyback.

    He said i can have it if i want to, because he's given up on it and bought 3 LCDs for his gaming setup. It's funny, this guy is an actual EE (as in diploma and all) and he couldn't fix that monitor. Well, more for me, better for me. I'll go pick it up when i come back home.

    Leave a comment:

Related Topics

Collapse

Working...