Also the video from digital foundry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8BVTHxc4LM
Nitpick: the ‘response time’ or ‘display lag’ section is negligently inaccurate.
The electron gun in the back of a CRT does NOT fire electrons in the general direction of your face at “the speed of light”, nor even relativistic speeds. A web search turned up a back-of-an-envelope calculation that yielded about 17% of light speed.
Does it take measurable time for the phosphorus to respond and emit light? I’ll accept “no, not really”, but if that’s the case, the author should have said so. …I guess it’s a gaming article… Still.
Interesting points (and I highly recommend reading the comments as well), but don’t most people still get headaches from CRTs? I find even the high hum from the flyback transformer in a tube TV or monitor to be uncomfortable, let alone the eye strain. I set my modern monitor (Dell U2415–very highly recommended, by the way), phone, and ThinkPad screen (which is terrible, but it doesn’t drive me crazy because it’s not uncomfortable) to a relatively low brightness and basically never get a headache anymore from staring at a screen.
Thanks for pointing out the comments - they’re really insightful (I just watched the video and the youtube comments are a completely different story).
Is this the new “music just sounds better on vinyl”?
Not really. Vinyl is worse from a fidelity perspective than CDs — vinyl quickly degrades, for example — but some people prefer the “warm” but inaccurate sound you get from vinyl even as opposed to modern lossless formats such as FLAC. CRTs, though, are different. They’re actually much higher-fidelity than modern LCDs: they have measurably lower latency (I know some pro SSBM players only use CRTs, for example); much better contrast; don’t suffer from motion blur; and don’t have issues with only supporting a single “native” resolution, which means they’re not blurry at non-native resolutions (and if you’ve got a 4k monitor, you’re probably running a lot of your games at non-native resolutions unless you’ve got some seriously beefy GPUs, or you’ve turned down graphics settings — and for some consoles you don’t even get a choice of resolution anyway, and have to accept whatever it outputs). CRTs are well known to have better picture quality, but they’re extremely inconvenient due to their massive weight and size, which is why they lost to LCD: you can buy a 48-inch LCD from the store, carry it home, and mount it on the wall without much effort, whereas if you tried to do the same with a CRT you’d need a whole team of people and one seriously sturdy media cabinet. CRTs don’t scale in terms of physical size very well, and most people care about the physical size of their TV screen quite a bit: just think back to those tiny CRT TVs of the 90s that are barely bigger than a PC monitor these days.
And for laptops, you don’t have a choice: weight matters even more there.
In some game tournaments they will use CRTs for their better response time. Super Smash Bros comes to mind but I’m sure they did (do?) it for other fighting games.