I’m a pretty avid old video game enjoyer and own multiple CRTs. Also had the pleasure of owning and maintaining a 19" Sony PVM until I traded it to a friend for a mountain of GBA games. Still keep a 13" hooked up for the occasional VHS or old game.
That said, I feel like a lot old sentiment toward emulation and modern display tech is rooted in internet opinions from 2010 or prior.
Yes, older and cheaper LCDs with a Bluetooth controller on old emulation tech pales in comparison to a Super Nintendo hooked up to the cheapest CRT ever. But both display tech and emulation tech have come a long way. High quality upscalers, ultra deep blacks, low latency game modes, insane refresh rates, FPGA, Retroarch run-ahead, cycle accurate emulators, and a dozen other breakthroughs have made retro gaming on modern panels extremely enjoyable.
SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It will not. The article is nostalgia and hopium-baiting.
orclev@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s also utter garbage. We abandoned CRTs because they sucked. They’re heavy, waste tons of space, guzzle power, and have terrible resolution. Even the best CRT ever made is absolutely destroyed by the worst of modern LCDs. The only advantage you could possibly come up with is that in an emergency you could beat someone to death with a CRT. Well, that and the resolution was so garbage they had a natural form of antialiasing, but that’s a really optimistic way of saying they were blurry as shit.
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
No chance I could lift a CRT enough times over and over to beat someone to death with it.
darkkite@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
besides input lag, and motion blur
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 21 hours ago
Now-now. With CRTs resolution is not an inherent trait anyway. You could trade off update frequency for better resolution and back.
When CRTs were common, LCD displays also were heavy, wasted tons of space and guzzled power. And for some time after that they were crap for your eyes.
No, the best CRT ever made is really not that, but also costs like an airplane’s wing.
An LCD display has resolution as its trait. A CRT display has a range of resolutions realistically usable with it. It doesn’t have a matrix of pixels, only a surface at which particles are shot.
So, the point before I forget it. While CRTs as they existed are a thing of the past, it would be cool to have some sort of optical displays based on interference (suppose, two lasers at the sides of the screen) or whatever, allowing similarly agile resolution change, and also more energy-efficient than LCDs, and also better for one’s eyes. I think there even are some, just very expensive. Removing the “one bad pixel” component would do wonders. Also this could probably be a better technology for foldable displays. As in - now you scratch a screen, you have to replace the matrix. While such a component wouldn’t cost as much a whole matrix, the lasers would be the expensive part.
Anyway, just dreaming.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Absolutely, in the beginning there were pros and cons, with the cheap TN-LCD having serious annoying display issues.
But with better LCD technologies like IPS arriving and improving fast together with lower prices, there is no doubt that today even a cheap IPS display is way better than any CRT can ever be. With better clarity, colors and black, and even less ghosting, because CRT definitely has ghosting too.
Back in the day my Sony 29" CRT TV weighed about 60 kg without speakers. (the speakers could be detached).
And the CRT weight increases exponentially with size, because with bigger screen the glass needs to be thicker to withstand the significant pressure of the vacuum in the tube.
So a 60" TV CRT would most likely weigh above 200 kg!! The tube alone would be more expensive to make than an entire modern TV of similar size!
But more than that, it would be very difficult to make a 60" CRT screen that doesn’t flicker, and the extreme speed needed for the ray to cross the entire screen, would require enormous power to light the phosphorous surface, within the nanosecond time it has for each pixel. Even just normal HD 1980x1024 at 60 frames per second and 3 RGB subpixels per pixel, is 364.953.600 sub pixels per second, so an analogue signal that needs to control the cathode ray at that speed would require enormous power.
The result would be a 200kg+ TV with smeared/blurry images and very poor color quality, due to the inherent imprecision. and even with clever tricks to make the tubes slimmer, developed near the end of CRT popularity, it would require almost a meter distance from the wall, to make room for the huge cathode ray tube.
There is no way CRT is making a comeback, CRT is inferior in every way, also in blackness, contrary to what he claims in the article.