What? My HD CRT certainly doesn't look "bad" when using composite or S video. In fact, it seems to make these inputs look better than I've ever seen them before, on SD CRT or modern Flat Panel. It may be to do with the certain Trinitron I have with its comb filters and such, but I can assure you, it looks surprisingly great with older inputs. I couldn't believe how awesome my model 1 Genesis looks on there, and they're certainly not known for their stellar composite quality.
I have an XRGB Mini and three PVMs, and I prefer the PVMs over the XRGB for my retro systems. I'm no stranger to the benefits of a CRT. But modern LCD screens have amazing contrast ratios and imperceivable lag (on the order of <10 ms), and the argument that a console is designed for a CRT basically disappears if you're talking about anything 7th gen and above. To be honest I've never actually seen an HD CRT in person, so I really have no idea what using one is like — my PVMs don't even like 480p. I'd imagine a 480p game probably looks amazing on a CRT capable of it! But beyond 480p, where does an HD CRT beat a modern LCD? Maybe price? I mean, the LCD screens I'm thinking of here are probably a lot more money than a used plasma, and I'd imagine if you can find an HD CRT they might be less than that too. But at this point in time, with 120 Hz 1080p LCDs with insane contrast ratios becoming common, and high refresh rate 4K LCDs beginning to become affordable is there still a reason to get an HD CRT *other* than the fact that it's less expensive?
There actually is lag on HD CRTs, especially via the HDMI port. You can test this very easily if you have a gaming LCD monitor and dual monitor setup your HD CRT and move the mouse on both screens. Set the HD CRT to 720p so it has 60 FPS as 1080i is only capable of 30 FPS. The digital to analog conversion here is very laggy, I'd wager 2-3 frames on my Samsung one that has two HDMI ports. Even via component, now I cannot confirm this, but I'm certain there is still some lag being done by the display. Not anywhere near as bad as when using HDMI, but it still feels like it's there. If you get a HD CRT, do not use HDMI for gaming if you plan on playing against other people, use it namely for videos and such or if you are casual and don't compete with other people. Stick to component if possible as it offers the least amount of lag.
That was kind of my point. I'm not arguing that you should play your PS4 on an HD CRT over a top of the line flat panel. Adaptive contrast does not equal insane contrast ratios. If you're watching a scene with lots of lights and blacks, you still have a crap contrast ratio(by comparison). It basically just looks good on paper. OLED screens, though, are a different beast. They are the only flat panels I know that produce the crazy black levels for great contrast. To answer your question, the main reason is for retro games. Retro games look better on CRT (PS2 and earlier). The pixels just seem less harsh on the CRT due to the difference in technologies (static panels of perfect pixels vs electron beam shot onto phosphorus). I've never noticed HDMI lag on my PS3 hooked up to my Sony CRT. Possibly this is brand specific? I play PS2 using component, also never noticed lag.
Probably model specific, possibly brand specific. There is going to be lag on any HDMI input. Period. End of story. This is because it's a digital connection streaming digital serial data to the monitor/TV, which the TV then processes to display as a picture. There's no way around that processing, no matter the display technology, because unlike with a 100% analog CRT there is digital circuitry scaling and manipulating pixels before displaying them on the screen. That means that there is always going to be *some* lag (which will never be less than 1 frame), but in a good display (especially with a "gaming mode") it's going to be on the order of individual frames which is simply imperceivable. Kokonoe mentioned comparing the lag of an HD CRT over HDMI to that of an LCD over HDMI, and I'd bet anything that the reason his Samsung CRT has such lag on its HDMI inputs is simply due to lag not being factored into the design of its HDMI processing circuitry, because it's old technology from when HDMI was first introduced. One common misconception that I see on forums like this or shmups is that display lag on a modern HDTV is always an issue, but in reality even if your TV is giving you about 40 ms of lag (about average for a low or mid-range LCD, from what I understand) that's a total of about 2.5 frames @ 60fps which is still nearly imperceptible by even the most well-trained eye. Compare it side by side to something with a known lesser lag and of course you'll see the difference, but with a screen by itself I don't understand how it's even possible to see unless we're talking about astronomical amounts of lag. Various studies I've found online show that the human brain takes about 100ms to perceive visual stimuli in the first place. That's only half the picture (pun not intended) because it takes roughly another 100ms to react to the stimulus, which means that there is at least ~200 ms (or 1/5 of a second, or over 10 frames @ 60 hz) between the time when you notice an enemy is there and actually pressing the fire button on your controller to blow him away. I'm not saying that a TV with under 200 ms lag is unnoticeable; I'm sure most people would instantly notice it and get pretty frustrated. But for a low enough lag (I'm estimating around 40ms or less) you'll be hard pressed to be able to notice any lag at all. I'd love to see someone point the 1 frame lag out on my XRGB Mini, as I don't see it being humanly possible to even do so. I mean, if video processing normally produced such great, perceivable lag I really doubt upscalers would have much of a market in the first place. I'm no visual scientist, but I've done a lot of research on the subject. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm very interested in the neurological aspects of this field.
Yeah, but if it takes you 100ms to register that the enemy head is under the sight, with another 100ms to press the fire button, and the image is delivered 40ms after the console state says so, your reaction time with regard to the software will be effectively 240ms, a whole 20% slower than 0-delay (200ms). Now if you're playing in low latency (or latency compensed) with an opponent that doesn't have the 40ms delay but the same reflexes as you, he'll be advantaged. Now, the same goes for games on which exact timing is very important. Of course your eye won't feel the difference, but the console will have a steady delay betweent he software state and your reaction to it. You'll keep missing target/falling in the cliff instead of jumping right before it, etc., at least until you get used to the delay (if applicable to the game). Try playing Rock Band with a 40ms delay (calibrated for 0ms delay), it's a nightmare. I hope I'm making sense...
As a fellow owner of Sony CRTs (mostly XBR series), I concur with everything you say. The latest LCDs are starting to catch up on certain aspect of the CRT, but still need some improvements to be a 100% replacement.
I play Smash competitively, and I can definitely say with certainty (as will other Smashers) that 1 frame of lag is very noticeable for Melee. However, the conversion from Digital to an Analog format such as a CRT causes a lot more lag than that, I've used another HDMI CRT which was Toshiba in brand and it has the same issue with adding a significant amount of lag due to the conversion and a CRT being well, Analog in format. However, there are other things that cause lag on a HD CRT, they are designed a bit different and the only real way to bypass this additional lag is to have specific model Sony HD CRTs with High Definition Pass Through disabled, but it only works at 1080i resolution. I don't know much more about this subject, but HD CRTs are a different beast all together. 1 frame of lag for XRGB stuff is fine for most people, it's not that bad. However, HDMI on a HD CRT is far laggier than that. HDMI is convenience, but always go component if possible on these TVs.
How much lag are we talking about here? I can see no visible lag when playing PS3 games using HDMI on my Sony HD CRT TV. In Scott Pilgrim for example, a 2D fighting game playing at 60fps, there is no visible lag from when I tap the button and the punch happens.
Not to derail the thread or anything, but since you've got PVMs do you think you could help me figure out which one to buy? Do you have a 14 inch one?
I've had one of those before, but far from being my first PC. This was my first... Unfortunately I never owned a floppy drive for it, only a Datasette.
I have a "13 inch" one and a "14 inch" one, as well as a 5 inch one that's great for parties. (Not really). I put the 13/14 in quotes because the 13" one's sticker says 1995, the 14" one says something like 2005 (I think?), and I can't see any size difference let alone a whole inch, so I'm sure they just measured the two differently so they could say the later one was "bigger." That said, if 14" is a good size for you, and you want a good video CRT for 480i/240p gaming I would VERY HIGHLY recommend a PVM-14L2. That's the 14" one I have. They are still relatively inexpensive on eBay (I think I paid less than $100 after shipping, definitely not much more than $100), and it has two composite inputs, one S-video input, one shared RGB/YPbPr input (for component and RGB), and a card slot for one of those PVM input expansion cards. I use it for everything from Sega Genesis to Nintendo Wii.
Is 14" really big enough though? I want a PVM for the purpose of it being my main retro gaming TV, I live in Japan by the way and can almost always get them a lot cheaper, so I was thinking of getting a 20" one. Do non-RGB modded consoles look good on it? As in, to the point where having a PVM is still a big improvement over a regular CRT?
For me 14" is big enough, but that's partly because my XRGB Mini is plugged into a giant projector — I can see 2-3 people huddled over a 14" screen playing Super Smash Bros, but it might get uncomfortable. 20" would probably be better for that, but in the late 2010s it's exceedingly difficult to even get a firm idea of what the size of a 20" CRT really is. Don't forget, a 20" CRT is actually bigger than a 20" widescreen LCD due to the aspect ratio. You said you live in Japan, so you've probably seen the "candy cab" sit down arcade machines they have there, and from what I understand those usually have a 24" screen. So if you think 14" might be too small you might wanna make sure 20" won't be. But for me, using it primarily for 1-2 player gaming 14" is definitely adequate. As far as how much better it would be vs a standard CRT without RGB modding your console — I can't really answer that. It will be good, that's for sure, but I quite literally grew up playing N64 on a 13-14" PVM and have always used aperture grille CRT displays (Trinitron tubes) so I can't really even remember what a shadow mask screen looks like in person, not to mention I'm definitely biased to be more than happy with my 14" PVM having grown up with one. Apart from the whole shadow mask vs aperture grille debate, though, I do understand that PVMs generally have a much better comb filter for limiting NTSC artifacts over composite or S-Video than your average display does. But that raises another question — do you need to mod your consoles to get RGB in the first place? SNES (original, not mini), PS1, PS2, and Sega Genesis/Mega Drive all need nothing but a cable to put out pure RGB video, and the SNES Mini and early model N64 consoles need about 10-20 minutes worth of soldering and a cheap board from retrorgb.com to get RGB from them. (And I can say with confidence that an RGB-modded N64 is more than worth it).
One thing people dont seem to mention is getting a nice 1400 line CRT and pairing it with a HDfury is a good option as well. Personally Im getting Another fw900 and going to pair it with the hdfuryV when out. There are also some custom ramdac makers such as moome(who works mainly on high end CRT projectors[ another option as well] ) . Just my two cents.
