Sony GDM-FW900 CRT Monitor Brand NEW in BOX

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
7,860
Nah, still prefer my Panasonic plasma over the LG CX. I understand the OLED is much better on paper, but the picture on the Panny just feels more natural and pleasing to my eyes.
You’re not the only one who’s said this. Some crt projector dudes also prefer their plasmas to their OLED’s for the same reason.
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,515
We’re talking TV though. LG still offers BFI, as does Sony. With this, their motion clarity is on par with plasma and even better at 120hz. Monitors… different story.
I was thinking of the C2. How the BFI switch is still there, but apparently has no effect against a 120Hz signal.
 

exiled350

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,266
Nah, still prefer my Panasonic plasma over the LG CX. I understand the OLED is much better on paper, but the picture on the Panny just feels more natural and pleasing to my eyes.
I have a G1 in the living room and absolutely love it for Series X and 4k native content. For regular TV I prefer to sit downstairs and watch on my 2006 Panasonic 50". $2200 new and probably has 10,000 hours on it, still beautiful.
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
7,860
I have a G1 in the living room and absolutely love it for Series X and 4k native content. For regular TV I prefer to sit downstairs and watch on my 2006 Panasonic 50". $2200 new and probably has 10,000 hours on it, still beautiful.
The phosphors on the display definitely do have a soft “glow” to them. Very CRT-like. We’re moving into a new house soon and my plasma has a faint burn pattern on the green pixels. Hard to notice except for certain images. Am thinking of making this tv the guest tv and getting either an LG-C1 or another plasma.

Other than the burn it’s a fantastic TV. It’s also a lower end Samsung so I’m sure a Kuro or a newer Panasonic would smoke it.
 

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,279
Prior to the TV I have now, I had a Sony Wega CRT flat screen 32 inch. That thing weighed a metric ton and all of the weight was right on the front because the glass had to be super thick to take the curve out of it. It was easiest to carry it with another person by putting the glass side down. If you carried it upright, it was very awkward because it wanted to turn over. It had a lot of inertia. When I was in college, a friend of mine bought the 35 inch version and he and a friend put it in the trunk of his car at the store. He was actually taking it home to his house. They wanted to bring it in so that it wasn't sitting out in the dorm parking lot overnight to get stolen. However, after a few minutes trying to pry it out of the trunk, they decided that if anyone could steal it, they earned it.

I always carried my CRTs wearing clean tshirts with the glass facing me. It can try to tip all it wants but is pushing against something that makes it seem light in comparison and isn't going to move anything as a result.
 

jacuzz1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
7,086
Run mine at 1920x1600 96hz and modern screens still don't match in making the picture and motion feel like real life. Games like EFT (which I don't particularly like lol) look so dam real on it.
yeh Quake on mine was second to none. I miss it but man, new desk every 3 years from bowing. The thing was heavy and buying it along with 3dfx cards did not leave much left for a good desk.
 

Stugots

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
6,965
Seeing these Trinitron prices is very infuriating. I couldn't count how many of these I either had to throw out or give away because even the Salvation Army and Good Will refused to accept any CRT TV's or monitors.
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
7,860
That moment when I realize my old FW-900 would have spanked this example. I’m gonna go get a drink…
Also, Linus is straight wrong in some of his facts. Not sure I care enough to message him but:

1. FW900’s peak luminance is 115 nits not 125. That’s 9300K. It may be able to reach 125, if you raise the color temp to 11,000k but it’s not meant to.
2. Dreamcast VGA isn’t 480i. FW900 cannot scan low enough to do 240p/480i. He was using 480p.
3. My old FW-900 was 95 nits at 6500k. Max contrast, when fully calibrated at 6500k is 105 nits. So his monitor is really old and used or just needs to have a white point balance adjustment.

Anyways… now for another drink as I remember my beautiful FW-900. :)
 

CruisD64

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
2,326
Not the same unit, was my first thought as well but then I noticed that the build dates are different.
Yeah, I didn't think it was the same unit as this one was clearly described as used but I just thought the timing was interesting. But who knows!
 
Top