I Made the Switch from CRT to LCD

[Atariboy]

LCD's are just as undesirable for something like a Playstation as they are with earlier consoles.

 

It's really only with last gen consoles and the Wii where you stand a chance with the average HDTV of getting passable picture quality with progessive scan releases. You need a pretty good internal scaler to get decent performance out of 480i and lower consoles.

[cimerians]

Well, I've switched back. Not because I was unhappy with LCD but because I found the perfect CRT for my limited space. I posted about this topic in the thrift finds thread, but I thought I'd reprise it here in case people are in the market for a great CRT.

 

It's the Toshiba 14AF41, a 14" flat screen CRT with tons of inputs: coaxial, composite (x3, including front panel), S-Video (shares audio with one composite input), component. Great sound. I have been looking for a 13" Sony WEGA for a long time, and I may like this one better. Oh, and it was $6.

 

haha...I have that same exact model.

 

[Bones Brigade]

I have both. I held onto the CRT only because of light gun and SegaScope 3D games.

 

My Samsung LCD actually has a fantastic picture, even with the older consoles, especially my Composite modded Atari 7800. The Sega Master System, Genesis, and 32x all look stellar on my LCD.

 

I think many retrogamers dismiss LCD and other modern platforms out of pure spite. A shitty, cheap LCD is going to look bad on retro consoles. A nicer, more costly one can look good to even great. They're also a lot easier to fine-tune and keep running well. CRTs are problematic with magnetic interference from speakers and other sources, and tubes tend to have long term problems with convergence drift that can never be completely rectified as they age. CRTs also tend to be much more susceptible to RF interference than LCD, plasma, & DLP.

[+Gemintronic]

Old LCD panels lied about the true refresh rate and thus look really bad on emulators. Never really had a problem with modern games due to the fact they blur the bugeezus out of everything anyway.

 

We'll all be going DLP projector or head mounted 3D display soon enough.

[MaximRecoil]

I think many retrogamers dismiss LCD and other modern platforms out of pure spite. A shitty, cheap LCD is going to look bad on retro consoles. A nicer, more costly one can look good to even great.

 

Out of spite? No; it is just that you seem to define "great" far differently than most "retrogamers". High-resolution display devices, whether CRT, LCD, plasma, or whatever, will always look wrong with old video games, because they can clearly display far too fine a level of detail. This is great for reading the tiny text on websites and in Windows and other operating systems. It is also great for high-resolution movies and other natively high-resolution video sources. However, it also brings out the stairstepping of old low-resolution graphics, making them look like the drawings on the boxes of early NES games:

 

 

Those drawings are 100% pixel-for-pixel accurate, but that's not how things look on a standard-resolution (~15 kHz) CRT. Standard-resolution CRTs have relatively large phosphor dots (coarse dot pitch) and coarse RGB triad shadow masks. Also, since they are not digital, any given phosphor dot can be partially lit (rather than simply on or off), and there is a certain amount of color-bleed than can occur between individual phospors. This all adds up to the greatest anti-aliasing device known to man, without even trying (the anti-aliasing effect is simply a byproduct of design), and results in the overall "look" of the old graphics that most of us know and love.

 

They're also a lot easier to fine-tune and keep running well.

 

Keep running well? For how long? I have CRTs from the early '80s that still work perfectly, and that I've never had to do anything to at all; i.e., I didn't have to do anything to keep them running well. How old is your oldest LCD?

 

CRTs are problematic with magnetic interference from speakers and other sources

 

Yes, in extreme cases that most people (including myself) have never encountered. For example, all CRT TVs have a speaker or two built in, sitting mere inches away from the tube, without issue.

 

and tubes tend to have long term problems with convergence drift that can never be completely rectified as they age.

 

I've never had a problem with "convergence drift", and I have far more experience with CRTs than the average person. Also, convergence issues can always be completely rectified by people who know what they're doing, by using the same techniques that the factory used to achieve proper convergence in the first place. But since "convergence drift" is practically unknown under normal conditions, most people will never have to deal with convergence at all unless they do a tube swap without retaining the replacement tube's original yoke.

 

CRTs also tend to be much more susceptible to RF interference than LCD, plasma, & DLP.

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. RF interference affects the video signal. The method of ultimately displaying that signal (whether a CRT, LCD panel, or whatever), is irrelevant with regard to RF interference. All that the tube or panel does is display what the video signal "tells" it to display.

Edited October 9, 2012 by MaximRecoil

[Bones Brigade]

Out of spite? No; it is just that you seem to define "great" far differently than most "retrogamers". High-resolution display devices, whether CRT, LCD, plasma, or whatever, will always look wrong with old video games, because they can clearly display far too fine a level of detail. This is great for reading the tiny text on websites and in Windows and other operating systems. It is also great for high-resolution movies and other natively high-resolution video sources. However, it also brings out the stairstepping of old low-resolution graphics, making them look like the drawings on the boxes of early NES games:

 

 

Those drawings are 100% pixel-for-pixel accurate, but that's not how things look on a standard-resolution (~15 kHz) CRT. Standard-resolution CRTs have relatively large phosphor dots (coarse dot pitch) and coarse RGB triad shadow masks. Also, since they are not digital, any given phosphor dot can be partially lit (rather than simply on or off), and there is a certain amount of color-bleed than can occur between individual phospors. This all adds up to the greatest anti-aliasing device known to man, without even trying (the anti-aliasing effect is simply a byproduct of design), and results in the overall "look" of the old graphics that most of us know and love.

 

Maybe you love the blurred, color-smeared fake "anti-aliased" look of a typical CRT. I don't know that you speak for a majority of anything though so the whole "Most of us" bit you're running with here seems a bit arrogant. There's a reason why many people learned how to video-mod their older consoles for Composite and S-Video (and even component and higher resolution). Some people prefer a sharper picture, and clearly defined graphics. Maybe not you, but many.

 

 

 

Keep running well? For how long? I have CRTs from the early '80s that still work perfectly, and that I've never had to do anything to at all; i.e., I didn't have to do anything to keep them running well. How old is your oldest LCD?

Good for you. I've had I don't know how many CRT TV's die or have significant components blow, or have the color convergence or focus drift out of normal over the years. I've never had any of these problems with an LCD, Plasma, or DLP. None. Not once. and I've been using LCD, Plasma, and DLP TV's and monitors since the late 90's.

 

 

 

Yes, in extreme cases that most people (including myself) have never encountered. For example, all CRT TVs have a speaker or two built in, sitting mere inches away from the tube, without issue.

Anyone with a set of stereo speakers from the same era as their CRT TVs (70s/80s - even into the 90s) before Speaker manufacturers started using proper shielding for home theater applications has at least seen the effect on a tube TV when any large magnet gets placed close to the Tube. TV speakers are tiny, >5 watt crap. Put a large set of stereo speaker near an old TV and tell me you don't see awful rainbow banding and blurring.

 

 

 

I've never had a problem with "convergence drift", and I have far more experience with CRTs than the average person. Also, convergence issues can always be completely rectified by people who know what they're doing, by using the same techniques that the factory used to achieve proper convergence in the first place. But since "convergence drift" is practically unknown under normal conditions, most people will never have to deal with convergence at all unless they do a tube swap without retaining the replacement tube's original yoke.

I've seen it a ton, especially on cheaper brand CRTs and rear projection CRTs. Proper calibratio for older sets like this costs a fortune. I know. I do it on the side.

 

 

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. RF interference affects the video signal. The method of ultimately displaying that signal (whether a CRT, LCD panel, or whatever), is irrelevant with regard to RF interference. All that the tube or panel does is display what the video signal "tells" it to display.

It all depends on the input type, sheilding, and filtering. many LCD and other panel types have filtering options that limit or eliminate certain kinds of rf noise. There isn't a single CRT TV made that has this ability, and there aren't LCD or other modern TV formats that still have the "Two Screws for the antenna" 300 ohm input type like many old CRTs had. Coaxial inputs can help, but still, RF inputs of any kind in general suck ass. Edited October 9, 2012 by Bones Brigade

[Bones Brigade]

Old LCD panels lied about the true refresh rate and thus look really bad on emulators. Never really had a problem with modern games due to the fact they blur the bugeezus out of everything anyway.

 

We'll all be going DLP projector or head mounted 3D display soon enough.

I absolutely love my 65" Mitsubishi 3D-DLP for all kinds of gaming, Atari right up through PS3.

[Keatah]

Intead of multi-quoting the entire thread. I will say this. It is very true that many purists dislike the LCD out of spite and other reasons beknownst only to them. Let them, while the rest of us move on.

 

As LCD's (and other display technologies) continue to improve; they only give us better tools to work with. LCD's have high-enough resolution, today, to do a good CRT simulation. I believe emulation and software is going to make a huge difference here. This is where it's at for the future of classic and retrogaming. There'll be a time when the last CRT filament burns out. And most certainly sony or any other mfg isn't going to start up a CRT production line for 0.01% of their customers.

 

Some emulators are now doing the basic image processing necessary to give us the look and feel of an old-school CRT. This will only improve with time. CRT emulators will come to pass sooner or later, right now they're integrated into the emulator itself. Perhaps we'll see a separate module or "filter set" that runs independently on the GPU. And any output from any software goes right through it, irregardless of the source. But I always fear that the whole bandwagon of CRT and NTSC/PAL effects are going to be tied to the emulation core. Some of the video circuitry in early machines is of course machine specific - and that falls under the emulator core.

 

CRT's are loud, dangerous, emit radiation, make excessive interference, are not green, need adjustments from time to time, consume too much power, generate heat, are heavy, susceptible to burn in.. This is not good stuff. The sooner they are gone, the better. And for all I know, early CRT's from the 70's caused brain damage from excessive radiation. Ughh..

 

Emulators I like that do this are:

OpenEmulator (apple 2 series, new kid on the block)

Stella 3.7.1

Atari800 Emulator 2.2.1

AppleWin NTSC WS-05

There are others, but this will do for now.

 

Discussing CRT's is like discussing frame welding on classic cars, far outside the mainstream discussion. But nonetheless a key issue in emulation realism.

[MaximRecoil]

 

 

Maybe you love the blurred, color-smeared fake "anti-aliased" look of a typical CRT.

 

Except it is not "blurred", nor is it "color smeared", nor is the inherent anti-aliasing effect of a CRT "fake". Ironically, things you typed here would be correct if you replaced the term "CRT" with "LCD":

 

The blurring comes from the fact that LCDs don't have a native resolution in the neighborhood of 256 x 240, nor do they tend to have native resolutions that are exact multiples of the odd and various resolutions of old video games; thus through resampling, they have to try to fit a round peg into a square hole, so to speak.

 

Replace "color smeared" with "pasty colors", and you are right on the money for an LCD. You can add in the fact that the colors are from backlighting rather than from phosphors which generate their own light and can be totally off in any given area; and are viewed through thin, cheesy plastic, rather than glass which is optically far superior.

 

Since LCD panels have no inherent anti-aliasing effect, the resampling filter algorithms that have to be applied when cramming a round peg into a square hole, are obviously far closer to the term "fake" than something which does something as a byproduct of design (and does it much better as well).

 

I don't know that you speak for a majority of anything though so the whole "Most of us" bit you're running with here seems a bit arrogant.

 

I've been on console and arcade forums long enough to know that most people prefer the look of CRTs with old video games.

 

There's a reason why many people learned how to video-mod their older consoles for Composite and S-Video (and even component and higher resolution). Some people prefer a sharper picture, and clearly defined graphics. Maybe not you, but many.

 

Say what? Of course people want the best video signal possible, and that applies to CRTs. I have 4 arcade machines from the '80s, and those all output a pure RGB video signal to their CRT arcade monitors, which is the highest quality analog video signal possible (better than the ones you mentioned). CRTs really shine with a high quality video signal, especially RGB. The image is sharp and clear:

 

 

The round and relatively large phosphor dots, combined with the coarse RGB triad shadow mask (which consists of round or rounded holes) prevents or reduces the "built with Lego blocks" appearance that high resolution monitors impart to low resolution graphics. For example, the Pac-Man sprite actually looks round on a CRT, which is obviously the way it was intended to appear. On an LCD or any other form of high resolution monitor (high resolution CRTs, such as CRT PC monitors, included), you see every little jagged stair step around the Pac-Man sprite.

 

Good for you. I've had I don't know how many CRT TV's die or have significant components blow, or have the color convergence or focus drift out of normal over the years.

Convergence rarely "drifts"; it is a matter of magnetics, and the adjusting magnets are glued in place. If your TV gets smacked around or if you move to a part of the country that has a significantly different magnetic field, then you may have convergence issues. Focus is just a knob on the flyback transformer.

 

I've never had any of these problems with an LCD, Plasma, or DLP. None. Not once. and I've been using LCD, Plasma, and DLP TV's and monitors since the late 90's.

 

So how old is your oldest digital display that still sees regular use? By the way, it goes without saying that you won't have convergence and focus issues with a digital display, because those things have no relevance to digital displays.

 

Anyone with a set of stereo speakers from the same era as their CRT TVs (70s/80s - even into the 90s) before Speaker manufacturers started using proper shielding for home theater applications has at least seen the effect on a tube TV when any large magnet gets placed close to the Tube. TV speakers are tiny, >5 watt crap. Put a large set of stereo speaker near an old TV and tell me you don't see awful rainbow banding and blurring.

 

I've already replied to this; i.e., this affects relatively few people, and I'm not one of them.

 

I've seen it a ton, especially on cheaper brand CRTs and rear projection CRTs. Proper calibratio for older sets like this costs a fortune. I know. I do it on the side.

 

Rear projection CRT displays have 3 CRTs, and convergence can be a pain with them, since there is a lot more potential for movement; i.e., convergence relies on 3 separate picture tubes maintaining their position relative to each other. I don't believe for a moment that you've seen convergence issues "a ton" on ordinary single CRT displays. The convergence rings are hot-glued in place, and any additional magnetic strips used for fine tuning the convergence are glued directly to the back of the tube. As long as the TV doesn't get banged around or the earth's magnetic field doesn't change significantly, convergence will never be a problem.

 

It all depends on the input type, sheilding, and filtering. many LCD and other panel types have filtering options that limit or eliminate certain kinds of rf noise. There isn't a single CRT TV made that has this ability, and there aren't LCD or other modern TV formats that still have the "Two Screws for the antenna" 300 ohm input type like many old CRTs had. Coaxial inputs can help, but still, RF inputs of any kind in general suck ass.

 

As I said, this has nothing to do with CRT vs. LCD; RF interference only affects the video signal; whether there is an LCD panel or a cathode ray tube waiting on the other end of that signal is irrelevant.

Edited October 9, 2012 by MaximRecoil

[MaximRecoil]

Intead of multi-quoting the entire thread. I will say this. It is very true that many purists dislike the LCD out of spite and other reasons beknownst only to them. Let them, while the rest of us move on.

 

Or so you say. Now, go ahead and point out a single person who dislikes the look of old video games on LCDs "out of spite". Since you claim there are many of them, finding one example should be easy enough.

 

LCD's have high-enough resolution, today, to do a good CRT simulation.

 

Not even close. When an LCD image is indistinguishable from real life, then it can simulate a CRT.

 

There'll be a time when the last CRT filament burns out.

 

Not in any of our lifetimes.

 

CRT's are loud, dangerous, emit radiation, make excessive interference, are not green, need adjustments from time to time, consume too much power, generate heat, are heavy, susceptible to burn in.. This is not good stuff. The sooner they are gone, the better. And for all I know, early CRT's from the 70's caused brain damage from excessive radiation. Ughh..

 

Oh good grief. This paragraph consists of outright falsehoods, exaggerations, irrelevance, and baseless speculation.

[+wood_jl]

Wow, people are just as opinionated about this bullshit are they are anything else. I'm for both.

 

(1) Classic computers (Atari 800, C64, etc) look better (to me, with S-video) on a QUALITY small CRT.

 

(2) Classic consoles frequently "work" better on CRT. The light gun is the obvious thing, but sometimes the scaling isn't right, and there's a delay on LCD. Deal-breaker, for me. I like the old light gun stuff, anyway.

 

(3) Sometimes, a classic console will work ok on LCD TV. Probably depends on the console and the LCD TV. I've been largely-disappointed.

 

(4) MODERN HDMI (or HD-component) consoles ALWAYS look better on LCD.

 

(5) Movies - in ANY format - DVD upscaled, Blu-ray, HD streamed - ALWAYS look better on LCD.

 

 

Like a political moderate, you'll take shit from both sides with such a position.

 

This ain't Highlander, so there doesn't have to "be one."

[MaximRecoil]

(4) MODERN HDMI (or HD-component) consoles ALWAYS look better on LCD.

 

(5) Movies - in ANY format - DVD upscaled, Blu-ray, HD streamed - ALWAYS look better on LCD.

 

The only advantage of LCDs for that sort of thing is that they come in larger screen sizes. However, if you watch your movies or play your modern videogames up close (like sitting in front of your PC), and a 24" screen is more than enough, then no LCD is going to look as good as e.g. a Sony GDM-FW900 CRT monitor. Or, if you want to sit back from the TV a little bit and are content with a 30" screen, no LCD is going to look as good as a JVC HV-M300VSU CRT TV.

 

Of course, in the "big screen" field, LCDs and similar win by default, because they have no competition (CRTs were never made in really large screen sizes, because they would weigh a ton if it were even possible to build such a large glass tube that was structurally sound). There are CRT projectors though, the best of which (e.g. Barco 909 and Sony G90) are still the highest picture quality you can get for home video; though they aren't the most convenient beasts in the world, nor are they particularly cheap or easy to find.

Edited October 10, 2012 by MaximRecoil

[Bones Brigade]

The only advantage of LCDs for that sort of thing is that they come in larger screen sizes. However, if you watch your movies or play your modern videogames up close (like sitting in front of your PC), and a 24" screen is more than enough, then no LCD is going to look as good as e.g. a Sony GDM-FW900 CRT monitor. Or, if you want to sit back from the TV a little bit and are content with a 30" screen, no LCD is going to look as good as a JVC HV-M300VSU CRT TV.

 

Of course, in the "big screen" field, LCDs and similar win by default, because they have no competition (CRTs were never made in really large screen sizes, because they would weigh a ton if it were even possible to build such a large glass tube that was structurally sound). There are CRT projectors though, the best of which (e.g. Barco 909 and Sony G90) are still the highest picture quality you can get for home video; though they aren't the most convenient beasts in the world, nor are they particularly cheap or easy to find.

 

Oh goodness. There should be a facepalm emoticon on this board, because most of this post is just plain fiction. I would say I would like to agree to disagree, but I'm pretty sure you'd find a way to say that CRT's are better than agreeing to disagree, so I'll just leave this thread in hopes that you feel satisfied in your own personal opinoins and wish you well.

 

adieu.

[MaximRecoil]

 

 

Oh goodness. There should be a facepalm emoticon on this board, because most of this post is just plain fiction. I would say I would like to agree to disagree, but I'm pretty sure you'd find a way to say that CRT's are better than agreeing to disagree, so I'll just leave this thread in hopes that you feel satisfied in your own personal opinoins and wish you well.

 

adieu.

 

Nothing I posted is "fiction". The Sony GDM-FW900 (2304 x 1440 resolution) is widely considered to be the best CRT PC monitor ever made. LCDs have been playing catchup to the best CRTs in terms of image-related performance for as long as they have been around; and the idea that they have surpassed the best CRTs is laughable; especially when you can still shift your viewing angle and see a whole different set of colors with any LCD (and no, that problem has not been eliminated on any LCD).

 

The U.S. military has a stockpile of Barco 909 CRT projectors (3200 x 2560 resolution) for use in their flight simulators, because nothing else has been able to cut the mustard. Many planetariums still insist on them as well.

 

This is a photograph of a movie being projected onto a 12 foot screen from a Barco 909 (click on image to enlarge):

 

 

You lose a lot when photographing a projected image. That photograph still looks good, despite the inherent losses involved.

Edited October 10, 2012 by MaximRecoil

[Keatah]

This thread is a circus! About the only things CRT's are good are dropping off the 5th floor to make a loud bang.. And the proof is the pudding, people are still throwing CRT's out left and right. Especially them big ones. Especially in my neck of the woods.

[+wood_jl]

HA HA HA! It's just like I said, a few posts ago. People are so highly-opinionated, we may as well ban this discussion like religion and politics!!!!

 

 

There ARE advantages and disadvantages to both.

 

There ARE scaling and lag-times on LCDs, with ***OLDER*** equipment, frequently. Light guns DO NOT work. Advantage: CRT

 

The colors are noticeably more vivid (movies are fantastic) on LCD, new stuff looks "smashing" and the screens are big and the package small/light. Advantage: LCD

 

 

I think it's hilarious how everybody has to trash one and champion the other. It's silly.

 

Granted, the "audience" for CRT is very small, as is the relative screen size. That's why you're seeing them thrown out. Most people DON'T CARE about light gun games, and DON'T PLAY ATARI 800. They do watch movies, play Xbox 360, and DO want a huge screen. So they toss their CRTs. It's not because there's no conceivable advantage with all metaphysical certitude, for a small number of people.

 

I know nobody's going to be convinced of anything here, but it is kind of fun to watch. Carry on, fellas!

[Keatah]

I was also gonna say that when it comes to the masses and general consumer, LCD's (and other x,y matrix accessible displays), being the superior technology, will always rule the nest. Even a respected firm such as Barco has stopped doing their top-of-the-line CRT projector. Did they say why?

 

Until laser scanners are developed, there's going to be 4 major display technologies for the next 10 years.

LCD

LED

OLED

DLP

[Keatah]

I'm all worked up now, and I'm going to go play some StarRaiders with my lightgun..

[Torr]

Wow

 

I can't believe HD/LCD/Plasma/Etc... are getting so much praise here...

 

Classic games will look better on a classic TV, it's that simple.The games were programmed with CRT picture display in mind to hide the odd flaw here and there.

As someone above sated "it makes Pac-Man look round" and not like he was made of "Lego bricks". This same idea continues forward in SOOO many games in SOOO many ways.

 

Resident Evil 6 and Syrim look like crap on a 13" CRT the same (well inverse I guess) way that Sonic The Hedgehog and Super Mario Bros. look like crap on a 72" Plasma.

New games are designed to be used with new TVs, old games were designed to be used with old TVs.

 

Why not copy all your old LPs onto CDs and try to tell us they "sound better now" too while you're at it...

A CD of say Black Sabbath: Paranoid may sound better than the old 12" but it is an old analogue recording remastered to take advantage of the new CD technology. Unless old games are "remastered" to suit today's new technology they are gonna be best used on the technology they were designed for. I know for a fact (cause I own it) that playing "Sega Genesis Collection" for PS2 will look better on my 60" Plasma than actually playing those old Genesis games on a real Genesis on that same TV. Because those are basically "remastered" versions. Whatever emulator is on that disc is altering the display to make it "look good". Don't believe me? I can take a video of my TV with Sonic The Hedgehog (PS2 SGC version) playing on one input mode and Sonic The Hedgehog (Genesis version) playing on an another and flick back and forth to SHOW you the difference. And the PS2 isn't even designed for higher than 480 resolution. I can only imagine how they've cleaned such games up for emulation on the newest consoles with their downloadable 'retro' games cause I've never played them, but they HAVE to be 'polished' somehow, even moreso...

 

You wanna emulate? fine use a LCD or plasma, you wanna fire up the actual VCS or Sega Genesis systems with a real cart inserted in them with your old RF Switchbox (or composite A/V in the Genny's case), use a CRT.

 

It's that simple.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Torr

[Impaler_26]

This thread is indeed fun to read.

 

I'm still using a good old CRT TV and everybody else can use whatever they want. Why even discuss which is better? Just use whatever you like best and live with the fact that not everybody in the world shares your opinion.

Just a "good" advice from an old fart...

[Atariboy]

Resident Evil 6 and Syrim look like crap on a 13" CRT the same (well inverse I guess) way that Sonic The Hedgehog and Super Mario Bros. look like crap on a 72" Plasma.

New games are designed to be used with new TVs, old games were designed to be used with old TVs.

 

I spent significant time earlier in this generation playing the 360 hooked up via component to a SD CRT and thought it looked great.

 

Beyond the occasional developer that forgot with their text that not everyone was playing on HDTV's (And the occasional developer that resorted to letterboxing instead of including a true 4:3 mode), games looked nice with no issues and still showed a clear jump above last gen software.

 

In fact revisting some of those games since then in HD has been underwhelming since I was expecting a massive jump forward. Instead, I think my 480i Trinitron was holding its own pretty well in retrospect.

[Keatah]

Yes yes all that.. Classic games and CRT's go better together. blah blah blah blah.. I don't want a big box of shit and humming coils next to my head it'll make you nuts! So the LCD is my preferred choice. Nice, tight, crisp, clean, quiet. You must understand that as resolution continues to increase in LCD's, they will be able to simulate aperture grille and phosphor dots and all that happy horseshit that makes classic computing classic computing better and better. Blooming, bleed, and mixing and artifacting, cat's in the bag. Today's LCD's are there!

 

Now it remains the task of the emu programmers to get the GPU going and compute those effects dot by dot. In fact, a GPU would sit there laughing and probably beat off with itself out of boredom. It's not a compute intensive task by far. Not for today's mid-high-end chip. A year ago, perhaps.. today, no!

 

LCD - One display to rule them all!

[Bones Brigade]

The funny part is, LCD isn't even the best of the newer HDTV formats. LED, Plasma, and especially DLP are Way better for both modern and classic gaming.

 

DLP is the best of all formats. No burn-in or permanent pixel shading(still happens in LCD and especially plasma). Better refresh rates/no lag time. Some even work with light gun and Sega CD games!

[MaximRecoil]

I was also gonna say that when it comes to the masses and general consumer, LCD's (and other x,y matrix accessible displays), being the superior technology, will always rule the nest. Even a respected firm such as Barco has stopped doing their top-of-the-line CRT projector. Did they say why?

 

Because there is little market for them anymore. They weigh ~300 pounds, are over 4 feet long, are difficult and time-consuming to set up (convergence, focus, and various other things), can't be moved without having to configure them all over again, and have to be in a practically pitch black room for good results. Digital projectors (e.g., LCD, DLP) are good enough for most people, and are far more convenient to set up, move, and use.

 

None of that changes anything about their performance however; i.e., when it comes to projected home video picture quality, they (Barco 909 and the comparable Sony G90) can't be beat. The only thing better is two of them set up to work in tandem, each one displaying half of the video image, blended seamlessly together. Beyond that (and outside of the realm of video and completely beyond the realm of practicality for a home theater) would be a 35mm film projector, and beyond that would be a 70mm film projector.

 

CRTs aren't the only example of superior (in terms of performance) technology that has fallen by the wayside in favor of convenience. For example, younger people may not know that the quality of an average phone call in the U.S. 30 years ago was far better than it is today (when everyone had high quality Western Electric phones and calls were handled by the Bell System). The government broke up the Bell System, and then the desire for convenience and cheapness got rid of all of the high quality phones, first being replaced by cheap made-in-China corded phones, and then cordless phones, and then cell phones (the worst of the lot in terms of average call quality).

 

Music media is another example; most people listen to compressed digital downloads these days. Uncompressed PCM as found on CDs is superior in terms of sound quality. Under ideal conditions, a phonograph record may be superior to a CD. 2" analog tape is superior to all of them; but it, like a record or CD, would be kind of hard to fit in an iPod.

 

I don't want a big box of shit and humming coils next to my head it'll make you nuts! So the LCD is my preferred choice.

 

Say what? Since you think that CRTs make a significant amount of noise (you even called them "loud" in a previous post), I can only conclude that you've never actually used one, or you've only used defective/broken ones. A CRT is silent for all intents and purposes.

[phaxda]

Wow, just read all 4 pages, some interesting reading especially when considering built-in CRT emulation (or hacked-in, I guess). I could totally see this happening, especially given that so many emulation programs that run on a computer do this already. Eventually, the all TVs are going to be another big computer, right? They already run apps--bring on the "Classic TV Emulation" one!

 

We have a 42" plasma, an this purchase was long-fretted over but I could not stand watching HD football on a non-HD screen. The TV we bought handles older non-HD input well, including the Atari 2600. I prefer it on a CRT but it's definitely playable on the plasma.

 

I had to give away my old Samsung flat screen CRT, which was one of the finest video gaming TVs I've ever owned. Luckily, I did hold on to the only CRT TV we now have--this little guy:

 

 

This was the size TV we had when I was a kid, only in black-and-white!