Any old CRT PC monitor or Dell Ultrasharp U2412M - Advice.

[Skykid]

I need to grab something primarily for retro gaming.

I can get an old PC CRT monitor for £5 or a Dell Ultrasharp U2412M for about £110.

China has no scart and both monitors would be running via an XRGB2+.

Leaving the size/easy rotate features aside, what do you recommend?

[Fudoh]

The LCD.

[Skykid]

^ Had a feeling you might say that.

Any good reasons that I can explain to my banker why I'm blowing another £100?

[Fudoh]

because I would never play on a CRT (with 60Hz flicker) when I can play on a LCD with the same quality. We're not talking 15khz CRT vs. upscaled here, but about the same 31khz source (XRGB). The only advantage the CRT offers is the increased quality with non-standard refresh rates, but how many PCBs like that have got anyway ?

[Skykid]

Dunno, I have a Seibu Zero Team here that's totally unwilling to work on the only other LCD I tried. I expect it will do the same on the Dell.

But you're right. I hear the Dell is meant to be great for gaming and it's got a rotate mech. I don't know about aspect ratio settings - will I be able to adjust to 4:3 do you know?

[Fudoh]

will I be able to adjust to 4:3 do you know?

yes.

[Xyga]

Will this combo really handle [email protected] ?

[Fudoh]

To quote myself:

The only advantage the CRT offers is the increased quality with non-standard refresh rates, but how many PCBs like that have got anyway ?

[Xyga]

Oh yeah I didn't read correctly. Oops.

[alamone]

Stop being so casual and just get a big honking CRT.

[cjug]

because I would never play on a CRT (with 60Hz flicker) when I can play on a LCD with the same quality. We're not talking 15khz CRT vs. upscaled here, but about the same 31khz source (XRGB). The only advantage the CRT offers is the increased quality with non-standard refresh rates, but how many PCBs like that have got anyway ?

I beg to differ. When I have compared CRT, LCD & Plasma for retro gaming or low resolution gaming (640x480 and below), I've liked CRT better. For progressive sources, I haven't experienced discomfort on my eyesight. It's like the images have more of a tridimensionality to them. For instance, I recently connected my DC through VGA to these technologies and CRT came on top.

Skykid: Of course, it all depends on the condition of the monitor, and more important, on how *you* perceive it. With a cost so low, couldn't you try the CRT and if you don't like it simply discard it?

[Xyga]

Weren't some of the last arcade crt monitors manufactures situated around the Shenzhen area by the way ?

[Ed Oscuro]

The main point, which hasn't been addressed so far, is blur. bulbousbeard pointed out to me recently that some games - if rare ones - look absolutely like crap on an LCD.

This seems to be mainly rare cases with really fast scrolling however, like Sonic games on the Genesis.

All the other respects in the CRT vs. LCD battle are pretty well known and I don't need to comment there. I definitely prioritize size over most CRT features though - unless blur or lag are quite bad, I find it easier to game on a larger screen.

[Skykid]

^ I didn't think it the Dell had a blur problem at all. Isn't it designed for gaming specifically? Or does it fall down in this area for classic low res stuff? Would an XRGB2+ not make any difference?

[Xyga]

It's just that all 60Hz LCDs produce perceptible motion blur on some objects when there's rapid movement onscreen.
CRTs have some too, just significantly less.

[mesmer]

I would prefer to play Dreamcast on a CRT. Lagless, natively scanned not scaled. A fresh PC CRT will be very sharp at 640x480

[speedlolita]

Worth noting that the monitor mentioned will not scale 16:9 on the 16:10 display that it has, unlike my U2410. The main reason I've not seriously considered replacing this.

[quickbunnie]

^ I didn't think it the Dell had a blur problem at all. Isn't it designed for gaming specifically? Or does it fall down in this area for classic low res stuff? Would an XRGB2+ not make any difference?

Depends on your definition of a blur "problem". Dell ultrasharps aren't actually designed for gaming, they are 'prosumer' grade LCD, focusing more on viewing angles, color accuracy and uniformity, and contrast.

There are 2 sources of motion blur on LCDs, one is from a slow pixel response, and the other is from the static frame image. This Dell Ultrasharp is OK when it comes to the pixel response. Please don't trust the manufacturer spec of 8 ms GTG. Similar Dell LCD panels typically will show 1 faint afterimage from the previous frame, and 1 really faint inverse images from 2 frames previous (the colors are inverted on the 3rd oldest frame as the panel tries to overdrive certain pixels to rapidly change them so you don't get 3 simultaneous images).
Here's an example from a Dell U2711 panel: http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/mon ... setime.jpg
This is actually fairly good for your average LCD. I've seen some Samsung LCDs that are better, but for the most part, you can expect to see at least 1 afterimage on a good LCD, and cheaper ones can have as many as 3-4 afterimages, significantly blurring the picture.

Now, that's just one source of motion blur. The other is because your eyes are tracking motion on persistent display (the static frame remains on for the whole duration between one frame and the next). I feel the best explanation for how this works is on http://www.blurbusters.com. This is a problem with nearly every LCD, though some expensive newer ones are pulsing the backlight to reduce this effect.

It's just that all 60Hz LCDs produce perceptible motion blur on some objects when there's rapid movement onscreen.
CRTs have some too, just significantly less.

Even 120+ Hz LCDs will show motion blur, but it is true that you get less of the 2nd source of motion blur I explained above.

However, in the end, it all depends on how much motion blur you perceive. I believe most people will not really be able to tell there is motion blur on an LCD unless they are specifically looking for it. However, there are also many people who, once they see it, cannot unsee it. I can tolerate my Dell Ultrasharp's motion blur, because its other properties are excellent (I also don't game a whole lot).

CRT phosphors rapidly diminish after they are lit up, meaning the image you see is actually only visible a very short amount of time. Your brain just sort of ignores the darker screen that occupies most of the screen at any one time. This has the advantage that you will have minimal motion blur from either of the sources. CRTs also have an easier time achieving excellent color and contrast, but it still all depends on the build quality. This property is one and the same that produces a 60 Hz flickering effect. If that bothers you, stick with an LCD.

Sadly, due to the nature of how our eyes work, its either motion blur or flicker, can't fix one without causing the other.

As for whether you should get a CRT or the Dell Ultrasharp, the 2 main properties to look at are the contrast ratio and motion blur vs flicker. If you feel like that Ultrasharp contrast ratio is sufficient, and your aren't bothered by its motion blur, the practicality (size, weight, etc) of the Ultrasharp is the better option. However, if the pure blacks are looking too gray or your see some motion blur, you will be happier with a CRT (so long as the flicker doesn't bother you).

Hope this helps!