Sony FW900 or ROG Swift?

[scharfis_brain]

Sorry for hijacking this old thread:

How was 3840x2400 interlaced achieved with the FW900?

I've got a desktop with a SONY FW900 and two IBM T221 (stock DG5 and overclocked DG3).

I'd like to use either 3840x2400 natively on the FW-900 or some sort of GPU downscaling.
This way all screens would have the same Pixel pitch.

The FW900 has exactly the same active picture area like the IBM T221

[flood]

you don't get much more sharpness at higher res since it's limited by the electron beam spot size, and if you push the resolution you needa decrease the refresh rate

i think there's an interlace option in nvidia's custom res thing

[Glide]

The 24" BVM series of displays, which reportedly use the same tube (I would expect the FW900 to use rejected BVM tubes) are specified as 1000 TVL resolution in the center of the display.

So good luck trying to resolve 3840 lines I guess?

[scharfis_brain]

I am fully aware that I won't gain much more crispness.

But what I gain is the same pixel size on my very different screens (FW900 and T221).

I am using a DPI-scaling of 150% anyways. So things won't be too small to read.

Unfortunately I was forced to use AMD Graphics,
because stitching together screens (T221 with Cirthix' Adapters) with NVidia cards had become nearly impossible since Windows-7

[spacediver]

The 24" BVM series of displays, which reportedly use the same tube (I would expect the FW900 to use rejected BVM tubes) are specified as 1000 TVL resolution in the center of the display.

So good luck trying to resolve 3840 lines I guess?

I believe this is false, and that they're completely different displays.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=104 ... ount=10855

the prime mode for the FW900 is 1200 lines of resolution, and it's more than capable of handling this.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a415156.pdf

[scharfis_brain]

the FW900 seems to have a resolution of 1800 to 2000 tv-lines (vertical) at the center.
So one could think: hey, 1920x1200 is the best resolution.
But that's wrong IMHO: 1920x1200 brings a lot of interference with the aperture grill of the Trinitron CRT.
I am constantly using 2304x1440. So no moiré will appear on my screen.

[Glide]

Well thanks for the correction on them not sharing the same tubes. I guess that's just something which has been passed around as "fact" without being checked.

So does that make the FW900 the highest resolution CRT ever made?
Now I want one even more.

I had the opportunity to buy a new-in-box FW900 a few years back but decided that paying essentially the original price for it, plus shipping overseas, would not have been worth it. I regret that decision.

[spacediver]

Well thanks for the correction on them not sharing the same tubes. I guess that's just something which has been passed around as "fact" without being checked.

So does that make the FW900 the highest resolution CRT ever made?
Now I want one even more.

I had the opportunity to buy a new-in-box FW900 a few years back but decided that paying essentially the original price for it, plus shipping overseas, would not have been worth it. I regret that decision.

I think there were some medical grade CRTs that had higher resolutions. They were monochrome, however, and not designed for video or pretty graphics. The main purpose of these displays was to capture luminance detail across fine regions of space. I think the higher resolution models were around 5 megapixels, 21 inches, and a very different aspect ratio than most displays.

But the FW900's strength ain't in the # of pixels (although the prime mode of 1920x1200 is more than sufficient for many needs). It's the sheer beauty of the image

Keep an eye out online for ppl selling them - they do pop up from time to time. What city do you live in?

[spacediver]

the FW900 seems to have a resolution of 1800 to 2000 tv-lines (vertical) at the center.

Not sure where you're getting these numbers from.

But that's wrong IMHO: 1920x1200 brings a lot of interference with the aperture grill of the Trinitron CRT.

I don't get any moire at 1920x1200 unless I load up a pattern that produces it by design.

[rabidz7]

Sorry for hijacking this old thread:

How was 3840x2400 interlaced achieved with the FW900?

I've got a desktop with a SONY FW900 and two IBM T221 (stock DG5 and overclocked DG3).

I'd like to use either 3840x2400 natively on the FW-900 or some sort of GPU downscaling.
This way all screens would have the same Pixel pitch.

The FW900 has exactly the same active picture area like the IBM T221

It should do 3840x2400 at 96Hz interlaced with all GTF timings except for the vertical back porch, which should be tightened to 120.