Is CRT a meme?

I've found some CRTs sold nearby relatively cheap and need to decide whether to give it a try or nah. I'm a little limited in budget for now so I'd like to avoid absolutely stupid purchases the model I find mildly interesting is CTX PR705F (picrel), but the question applies to all CRTs: is there a legit reason to use it over "standard" displays like IPS or OLED?

>>86053 >Is CRT a meme? Yes and no. For retro gaming its the real deal due to how it displays the image not using "Pixels" per se. On the whole Its undeniably a downgrade compared to modern monitors though and i'm pretty sure staring at what is essentially a particle accelerator long term can't be good for your eyes but maybe that's just me being paranoid. Personally I really like how the image looks on mine, its "Low resolution" technically but i swear there's a certain sharpness to it that nothing else has, maybe its placebo. I bought a dell monitor few years back in pretty fuarrrking good condition and I don't regret it, I also saved 2 functional small old CRT TV's from the trash and being destroyed when I happened to pass by a dudes house when he was getting ready to throw them away. Fact of the matter is its highly unlikely CRT's will ever be made again in large scale. We are at the tail end of them being cheap and available, they are only going to get more and more expensive as time goes by and they become older and scarcer.

It's just something certain people like. For a computer monitor it's crap. It's better for watching old shows and playing old games. >>86059 Technically you can hide pixels by just having a filter over a CRT to diffuse the light couldnt you? Even just wax paper might work and turn up the brightness. Also HD CRTs are a thing. They are rare kind of though. I am sure since they have specific use cases so long as some Chinese company keeps making them they will always exist.

>>86053 >is there a legit reason to use it over "standard" displays like IPS or OLED? What do you mean? The only reason, legitimate or not, would be if you like it or not. CRTs have low resolution so most X11 stuff will run perfectly and without scaling, but some websites will break because they expect 1080p at the very least. And you are going to need xgamma because modern media isn't made for CRTs. This is going to sound weird but I think terminals for example look much better on regular LCD than on CRT, IPS or OLED.

>>86053 The legit reason is you enjoying the image displayed on the CRT more than other soykaf, really. It's all about preference. >>86061 Most non-ancient CRT monitors can do high definitions just fine. Source: My soykafty, low-end Samsung Synchmaster793df has a maximum definition of 1280 x 1024 pixels.

>>86059 >i'm pretty sure staring at what is essentially a particle accelerator long term can't be good for your eyes but maybe that's just me being paranoid for the record, beyond the fact that that the energized electrons don't escape, the energy scale of one accelerated enough to excite the phosphor on the screen is small enough that there is no danger to you. the voltage over the tube itself, the elements in some of the screens, and the fuarrrking weight of the thing are all orders-of-magnitude higher dangers to you. t. actual physicist

If you enjoy any sort of media from the time when CRT was the standard them i think its worth it. Just keep in mind that things will not look better nor worst on it, they will look different, and that's the whole point. If your thinking about "superior quality" then you're thinking it wrong. It's different, that's it. Also, if you can actually imagine yourself using it frequently, then again, worth it, if not, not worth it.

>>86063 Good to know, thanks! I will now proceed to use my CRT monitor with gusto like its 2005.

>>86063 Can you explain why my CRT years back made a half deflated mylar balloon fly to it like 50 feet away? How the fuarrrk did it build up so much static electricity?

>>86128 not him but there's a big difference between CRT TVs, CRT Monitors and the year they were made + brand and quality. I have an 80 cheap CRT tv (unnamed brand) and a 1998 SONY high quality trinitron, the first is only 800x600 @50Hz, makes my hair static if i put a hand near it and sometimes i get a little zapped, and is also noisy, the second is completely silent, goes up to 1600x1200 @95Hz 4:3, does not get burn-ins and never ever gave me electricity issues even if i put some fuzzy thing near it. IMO there's a lot of heated debate on CRTs because people assume they're all the same 80s crap and mostly never saw a late 90s quality one

>>86128 Also not him, but CRTs are electron guns, fired at glowy chemical embedded in the monitor glass. If you fire charged particles at an insulator, you're going to build up an overall charge.

>>86130 Ah right, it was a big CRT TV. I just found it fascinating how it charged the air in the entire area. Do CRT tvs and CRT monitors operate different or something? I mean aside from the TV components, just the CRT aspect.

>>86132 i mean i don't know the technicalities but i would guess the last ones were just made better just like LCDs from the 2000s that were crap and today's LCDs and that CRT made for computers were often made with quality in mind since they were used for graphics work while TVs were just consumer stuff (besides the high end stuff used in studios). i know sony trinitrons are different because they have some kind of aperture grill that apparently makes the image much better and the last good CRTs from the biggest brands adopted the technology too. maybe also the lower horizontal frequency on TVs could generate more electricity? but idk i'm not a physics guy

>>86128 Not counting ancient stuff, nearly all CRT monitors had auto degaussing that kicked in when you turned it on. They also had a degaussing option in the menu. Only very late CRT TVs had a degaussing menu, and I never saw any TV with auto degaussing. For most TVs, you needed to use a degaussing wand, but most people did not bother with it.

Sucks for text. CRT TVs are great for smash melee tho

>>86053 damn >>86250 beat me to it If you want to play SSBM competitively a CRT is a must-have. Not a matter of taste, non-CRTs feel floaty and terrible. Otherwise, CRTs look cozier and have that nice buzzy humm.

>>86053 >I'm a little limited in budget >CRT No!

>>86330 Gamer influencers ruined CRT prices

The last CRT I've used was an eye horror. I don't know why you care

>>86053 I heard that nano-LED is the best but expensive.

As said by others, it's al about the retro rendering for pre-flat screen retro games, either games that built their sprites a given way because of the scan lines or early 3D games with their jarring 3D or unsmoothened texels. For example the scintillating and vibration inherent to PS1 graphics are far more enjoyable with the natural blur, chromatic aberration and scan lines of CRT screens. It's one of those cases where less was more.

I bought my CRT for 35 usd and sold my lcd for the same, haven't gone back. I love the look of crts though, if I were you, I wouldn't buy any crt that's more than 60 bucks, and I'd keep your lcd just to test it out. Also be prepared to get a VGA to DP adapter.

>>86415 Not to be pedantic, but crts can be flat screens, I have one in my room right now

>>86063 will the lead in CRTs make me retarded?

>>86617 You're fine as long as you dont smash the tube and inhale the dust

>>86598 Can you post picture, Lainon ?