Are there non-toxic alternatives to CRT?

I'm a huuuge fan of analog video, but the only solution I know to enjoy it is through CRT screens. Very nostalgic and fascinating in general, but I'm always concerned when it comes to point a particle accelerator right in front of my face to blow my eyes. I know about some car screens and dash cam screns that are flat, TFT-based that are analog, but I don't know much about them. Is there any good solution to enjoy analog video with no emulation but using inly bare hardware?

oh look its another retarded "thing thats not toxic for any practical purpose bad how do i get an alternative" by using soykafty ass LCDs and it was forced into the market precisely on that basis (but toxic for eco instead of bio). the boom boom used CRTs for literally 100 years and they haven't had a decrease in life expectancy aside from from excessive fat >needs to call something TFT instead of LCD even tho it has nothing to do with anything you have autism, jesus fkuc

If it's just for watching vhs or whatever and not playing old games, just buy an old 4:3 or 5:4 monitor at a thrift store and a cheap composite to hdmi/vga box.

>>89335 A plasma display is what you're after, probably.

Honestly, I just watch my stuff digital. A cheap AV2USB adapter on aliexpress works perfectly for my usecase (Watching and digitizing old MiniDV Tapes)

I used to sit inches from the TV and im fine. Some generate a LOT of static electricity so i could see it may make electronics shorter lived in some cases though. Some old projectors used CRTs but do not point at you.

>>89335 nostalgia kiddies ought to be shot on sight

>>89955 Who pissed in your cereal?

>>89960 i think the issue is the rats ate his cereal

The main toxic thing with CRTs is probably the flame retardant chemicals in them (Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers). This applies to nearly all electronics made before 2006 as well. How bad they really are/were is debatable, but there was enough concern that they were taken off the market. Unfortunately your best bet nowadays is likely just using some kind of analog-digital converter with a high-res OLED or something with a CRT shader, which are supposed to be pretty close to the real thing.

>>89335 >but I'm always concerned when it comes to point a particle accelerator right in front of my face to blow my eyes. The electron beam cannot travel in air. That's why they use VACUUM tubes. The only thing CRTs made after 1970s emit is visible light. And no, the glass doesn't contain lead either. They began using barium-strontium glass instead. Any X-ray emissions are orders of magnitude below natural background radiation. Every type of electric overvoltage failure is also accounted for, using passive components (eg spark gaps) mandated by law. Televisions did accumulate a lot of static on their faces, which can under some unlikely circumstances damage sensitive electronics. PC monitors however always have a grounded face to mitigate this tiny hazard. CRTs do flicker though - this is a double edged sword. It is the source of their unmatched motion clarity, but the flicker can initially be straining at low refresh rates. PC CRTs were usually designed to hit at least 85hz, where the flicker becomes imperceptible to most. But your eyes will quickly get used to even 60hz with just consistent exposure. And no, there's nothing hazardous about flicker either. Only televisions whined. They draw around 15,000 lines a second, which we can hear as a whine. PC monitors are much higher resolution, drawing anywhere from 31,000 to 140,000 lines a second. You cannot hear that. Even disassembling them is remarkably safe. Your microwave is many orders of magnitude more dangerous than a PC CRT. There is absolutely nothing hazardous about CRTs.