Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, display shopping, monitor purchase decisions, compare, versus, debate, and more. Questions? Just ask!
User avatar
Oofloom
Posts: 47
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 20:20

Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by Oofloom » 12 Mar 2015, 00:08

Still no sign of brighter backlights so we can get closer to CRT motion clarity and brightness. :(

flood
Posts: 926
Joined: 21 Dec 2013, 01:25

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by flood » 12 Mar 2015, 00:28

crts are generally around 100 cd/m^2

strobed fg2421 is brighter than crts
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eiz ... _stability

but crt still has marginally better clarity, depending somewhat on the content

User avatar
Oofloom
Posts: 47
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 20:20

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by Oofloom » 12 Mar 2015, 02:59

Way off on that CRT figure. Some could do 10 times that.

And the Foris isn't an example of what I'm talking about. It sorts of cheats with its 240 mode by doubling the strobing, which introduces problems that further distance its performance from CRTs. I want a display that can handle fast, twitchy action (like in FPSs) as well as (well, as close as possible to) a CRT. You can't use refresh rate and interpolation tricks to do that. You have to have a really bright backlight.

Blurless
Posts: 24
Joined: 25 Mar 2014, 05:24

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by Blurless » 12 Mar 2015, 12:10

Doesn't it seem like strobing doesn't get much attention anyway? G-sync/freesync, 21:9 screens and 120/144Hz ips screens seem to get a lot more love. I've seen some hardware sites and gaming sites also explain strobing and '240Hz' wrong.

We should scream louder maybe? Screaming makes companies move.

flood
Posts: 926
Joined: 21 Dec 2013, 01:25

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by flood » 12 Mar 2015, 13:13

Oofloom wrote:Way off on that CRT figure. Some could do 10 times that.
i've no idea what you're talking about, but on my sony gdm-fw900 and my sony cpd-g520, the default setting after a windas calibration is 85cd/m^2, and you can only push it to 100 or so

spacediver
Posts: 505
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 23:51

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by spacediver » 12 Mar 2015, 13:22

Oofloom wrote:Way off on that CRT figure. Some could do 10 times that.
I think you are wrong about this.

User avatar
Oofloom
Posts: 47
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 20:20

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by Oofloom » 13 Mar 2015, 01:27

Pretty sure I saw mark say 1000/m2 once. Something about the tube itself being capable of it but scanning/yoke/circuitry/whatever being what limited most of them to much lower brightness levels.

spacediver
Posts: 505
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 23:51

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by spacediver » 13 Mar 2015, 02:16

Oofloom wrote:Pretty sure I saw mark say 1000/m2 once. Something about the tube itself being capable of it but scanning/yoke/circuitry/whatever being what limited most of them to much lower brightness levels.
yep that is more the case. The brightness is intentionally limited for a number of reasons, including maintaining the ability to keep the spot size small (higher beam current = more repulsion, resulting in a larger spot size), maintaining the health of the tube (that amount of beam current would result in intense wear on the triode and the phosphors).

I believe high end medical grade CRTs were rated for as high around 270 cd/m^2.

flood
Posts: 926
Joined: 21 Dec 2013, 01:25

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by flood » 13 Mar 2015, 02:34

yea i think those are monochrome ones, so there isn't the factor of the aperture grill/shadow mask blocking at least 67% of the electrons

spacediver
Posts: 505
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 23:51

Re: Over 2 years since the lightboost zero blur hack, yet...

Post by spacediver » 13 Mar 2015, 03:37

yep, definitely monochrome. Actually just reading a paper where they set the luminance to 350 nits.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046730/

The measurements were made on a high-performance monochrome CRT display with P45 phosphor and a pixel matrix of 2,560 × 2,048. The size of the CRT pixel (size of the Gaussian spot) was 0.144 mm; the Nyquist frequency was therefore 3.47 lp/mm. The CRT was set for a maximum luminance of 350 cd/m2 and a minimum of 0.75 cd/m2. Data were acquired with a CCD camera that recorded test images displayed by the CRT.

Post Reply