CRT screens best?

[copydaaigoedou]

Hi there

I have been playing ql for about 5 months and have improved a significant amount.
But, I seem to be getting to a stage where I am not improving really. I then heard some shocking news from a friend, that all pros play with CRT screens. Did a bit of research, asked some of the top players, and they all said yes it is true. Apparently CRT screens improve your aim and dodging a lot! Does this mean I have to get crt to become pro? Does this mean I am always at a disadvantage with my LED? Some shots just seem too good by me to miss, and there is sometimes fishyness going on(I know about hitbox delay but something else). Can you confirm this once and for all? Also? What exactly is the reason that CRT screens are better?(the scientific reason please)

Thanks

[Grandbolus]

They have a lot less input lag than non 120hz led's.

So apparently you need crt or 120hz refresh rate led for that next level.

However, you could probably do with some years of practice and perhaps other hardware upgrades too (mouse, pad, headphones).

ps. i dont have a fast monitor myself.

[Lorfa]

I have been playing ql for about 5 months and have improved a significant amount. But, I seem to be getting to a stage where I am not improving really.

Plenty of reasons why this can happen. It isn't necessarily hardware related. Without more information we cannot help you though.

I then heard some shocking news from a friend, that all pros play with CRT screens.

I don't think this is true. Most of the pros have switched to using 120 Hz LCDs, although most strongly approve of CRT use.

Did a bit of research, asked some of the top players, and they all said yes it is true.

Such as? Since they regular lans that rarely feature CRTs, it is in their best interest to practice on LCDs. The latest 120 Hz models aren't too bad.

Apparently CRT screens improve your aim and dodging a lot!

This is a stretch. Like any improvement in hardware it may make some things easier, but it will not improve aim/dodging outright.

Does this mean I have to get crt to become pro?

No, it does not.

Does this mean I am always at a disadvantage with my LED?

Not necessarily. The biggest problem with LCDs is "input lag". Sometimes called "output lag" or "input latency". This is the time it takes for events to be shown on the screen.

The worst case scenario for LCDs would be one with an average latency of like 60 ms and fluctuate wildly between 30 and 80 depending on what's being shown. This is bound to produce a dreadful game experience.

Luckily most LCDs are not this bad. The really good 120 Hz LCDs can have less than 10 ms latency, or even 1-3 ms. That's almost as good as CRT. A CRT has an input lag of about 400 microseconds, or 0.4 ms.

Note that input latency is something quite different from response time, which is how quickly the pixels themselves can change. With a high response time you would get "ghosting", that is after images shown during motion. This problem has pretty much been solved as modern panels have very low response times.

Sites such as prad.de do input latency measurements on some displays and they know how to do it correctly. Unfortunately measuring input latency is a rather involved, expensive, and tricky process to do correctly. Few sites put in the necessary effort, so you have to take their data with a grain of salt, or at least try to find multiple sources to compare them.

Some shots just seem too good by me to miss, and there is sometimes fishyness going on(I know about hitbox delay but something else).

What display do you have? There is a chance its input latency has been tested and is on the net somewhere.

Can you confirm this once and for all?

CRTs are a sure fire way to be certain of little or no input lag. However the latest LCD panels are at least close in terms of input lag, and bring with them benefits in space, power usage, resolution, and clarity.

That being said I still do not regard LCDs as superior to CRTs, but maybe they are about just as good as each other depending on what you use them for. I am still eagerly awaiting a new technology (OLED?) that will surpass both LCDS/CRTs and put an end to this very annoying issue of working with trade offs.

Also? What exactly is the reason that CRT screens are better?(the scientific reason please)

I am not sure, but there's a fantastic article on prad.de that might have this info. It's been a while since I've read it. Find it here:

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/speci...l#Introduction

[eduguy]

CRTs are very power hungry.

[Cat]

Since the 3DVision Lightboost trick was discovered, CRTs have become redundant.

[Lorfa]

Since the 3DVision Lightboost trick was discovered, CRTs have become redundant.

Except that has nothing to do with input latency.

[julios]

i love me my crts. A few months ago, right as my samsung syncmaster 19 incher was dying, my neighbours threw out a 19 inch sony trinitron G400 in essentially brand new condition. What a treat to play at 1024x768 with 120hz (my prev monitor only supported 120hz @ 640 res so I'd played at 640 res for years).

Then a few days ago, a good buddy switched to an LCD and handed me his 21 inch p1130 trinitron. thing does 170 hz in some modes - beast!

Had to carry it about 50 metres and up and down some steep flights of stairs - not easy when it weighs about 70lb and is the better part of a metre in depth - totally worth it though

[drunkenFooL]

I am still eagerly awaiting a new technology (OLED?) that will surpass both LCDS/CRTs and put an end to this very annoying issue of working with trade offs.

]

For those curious, OLED = Organic Light-Emitting Diode.
Quite the buzz at CES 2013 in Las Vegas.
I believe OLED has 4x the resolution of 1080p HD - hence the 4k marketing in the literature and seminars.

LG's 55inch comes out in USA in March 2013 at $12,000.00 list price. (not a typo)

Maybe we could all chip in and buy one. :-)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/tech/g...ces/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsF-jNPWvI4

[Cat]

Except that has nothing to do with input latency.

Input latency doesn't really matter when you have 0 motion blur, and even if it did the BenQ has less than 1ms of it.

[pistolp4]

It is kind of true. I have been using a crt for quite a while and here is what I have to say:

I play quake at 800x600 at 160hz, i know the game is capped at 125fps so i get no extra boost from 120 to 160hz but 800x600 is the reso I like to play at, and my crt just so happens to support 160hz at that reso so why not? CRT's, atleast the good ones have much, MUCH better colour reproduction than many LCD's. White is a REAL white, etc etc. This isn't true for all monitors, you see. Most 120/144hz lcd monitors have a TN panel, which has very good response times but it is famous for having bad picture quality. For picture quality you want an IPS or PLS panel, but unfortunately none of them come in the 120hz flavour. The panels are just too slow.

I would say, my ibm crt atleast, beats the crap out of a TN panel when it comes to colour reproduction, but it gets bested by an IPS monitor. So I would say colour wise, it is inbetween which is very impressive considering how old the tech is. Now the important part, refresh rates etc.

CRT's support much higher refresh rates ofcourse, i think my one supports 180-200hz at its lowest res? At its max res of 2056 x 1536 it is only 75hz. I use 1280 x 1024 on desktop at 100hz. The thing is, crt's are very bulky so make sure you have the desk space for it. I am blessed with having the convenience of a corner table, you may not have that luxury. I have my crt as a primary monitor, and a 1920 x 1080 lcd on the side for more desktop space. The difference between 120+hz and 60hz is absolutely amazing. Depending on how good you are, you should be able to notice a difference fairly quickly. Some people have said that going to a higher refresh rate lowers their acc for the first week or so until they get used to it, then its just uphill from there. The difference will get more and more noticeable overtime, and your skill will no longer be crippled by 60hz. Eventually, and probably somewhat quickly you will get to the point that gaming on a 60hz monitor WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY UN****INGBEARABLE. Honestly, I thought my crt broke once (user error, stupid me) so I took it away and used my 1080p lcd temporarily. I didn't play quake, I just launched dirt 3 which is a much more casual and slower paced game and oh my god it was unbearable. Lets say there is the edge from a wall, then you move to the left, you see the top half of it in the new position and the bottom half in the old position. I literally, in my mind, have to wait for my monitor to show the next frames. I can almost count them for **** sake. I can also barely see a thing when you actually get moving and playing. Basically, once you taste higher refresh rates, you will never go back. Web browsing is fine, albeit somewhat unpleasant.

Also, CRT monitors are much cheaper. for an entry level 120hz lcd you would be forking out $300 or so depending on where you live, for a crt you can find them given away or sold for very cheap. I picked up two identical ones, one of which i still use for $10 together. for the performance you get its an absolute steal. So they perform better, look better (though some of the newer, HIGHER END TN panels are comparable) and are much cheaper, basically free. They create heat though, use more power, and take up more space. They can also react to other electrical components, an example:

I have a very good and expensive Yamah amplifier for sound, I originally planned to have it on top of my crt for convenience but the moment I put it anywhere near it the image will go all fuzzy. This is because of the powerful magnetic field in the amplifier, so subsequently I am keeping it under my desk and far from my monitor. CRT's can be wierd this way, but its not really a problem to be honest.


Right now, I would say a CRT is a good option. Me, personally, I am waiting for 2560x1440 IPS 120hz monitors, THEN i might consider moving away from my crt. But for this point in time, I don't see any real upgrade path worth taking. At the moment DVI is not enough bandwidth to feed 1440p at 120hz I already did the math, displayport is needed. Also IPS and PLS panels are slow, I think the fastest one has an 8ms response time? Absolutely horrible. It will be a while for them to get to proper levels, and I think that by then OLED monitors will be replacing them, which I am really looking forward to.


So, you should probably go with a CRT and stick with it, like i am, for a few more years, until there is a real upgrade path.