PDA

View Full Version : The future of monitors..... or hold off on that LCD..



Bearcat99
02-18-2006, 10:58 PM
OLED (http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/oled.htm)

How Stuff Works (http://science.howstuffworks.com/oled.htm)

OSRAM (http://www.pictiva.com/)

TOLED (http://www.universaldisplay.com/toled.htm)

TOLED (http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/transparent-oled-on-the-way-151145.php)

The nice thing about this technology is that it can be molded.. so.... can you see the day when you would have an enclosed capsule with say... a 360 degree view on it... You wouldnt even need a TIR. Also.. this promises to be iunexpensive.. not like LCDs....and they can even be painted on a wall.... so that you could change the color of your wall by the flip of a switch.

GuNzABlaZiN
02-18-2006, 11:17 PM
The huge geisha on the side of the skyscraper in Blade Runner comes to mind. That's what the world is coming to.

fordfan25
02-18-2006, 11:47 PM
the posabilty's for porn is stagering http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-18-2006, 11:48 PM
Sticking with CRT because LCDs cannot display black or darkness as well.

um...this sounds GREAT




Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology
:
:

When used to produce displays, OLED technology produces self-luminous displays <span class="ev_code_yellow">that do not require backlighting</span>.

OLED ~> http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/oled.htm

Thanks Bear!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif You are right, I'll keep CRT until something like this is available. I need the ability to fly night operations without a ghost screen fogged with back lighting.

x__CRASH__x
02-19-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
the posabilty's for porn is stagering http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
LMAO!

WOLFMondo
02-19-2006, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Sticking with CRT because LCDs cannot display black or darkness as well.


Never owned a good TFT have you?

This isn't the case anymore, you can get TFT's (which are not even that expensive) that do darkness better than even the best CRT's now. My Hyundai L90D+ does better darkness than the IIyama 413's and 513's I have at home and at work (they won't give me a TFT cause I dont work in graphics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ), and it was cheaper! Look at the market shift too, all the decent companies that make graphic workstation monitors have switched to TFT's cause they can do everything better now.

Immermann
02-19-2006, 04:12 AM
Don't kid your self Wolf, the TFT's ar inferior to CRT's when it comes to contrast.

ploughman
02-19-2006, 04:24 AM
Wow! And it's pretty advanced! Thanks for the heads up!

Friendly_flyer
02-19-2006, 04:28 AM
One word: Wraparound.

Taylortony
02-19-2006, 04:46 AM
Dont forget SED the CRT the thickness of a plasma that will be with us later this year or early next year

http://www.engadget.com/2004/09/29/he-sed-she-sed-toshibas-new-sed-tv/

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050421/104026/

panther3485
02-19-2006, 07:25 AM
I'm inclined to agree with WOLFMondo about TFT (which is, in any case, merely a more advanced type of LCD); especially the newer, better quality units (which I think his Hyundai is).
A couple or so years back, CRT was clearly still superior to LCD in certain key areas but since then, LCD/TFT have improved a heck of a lot. If I were buying today and the choice was CRT or TFT, I'd go TFT.

It will remain to be seen how the 'new generation' of CRT's perform but even if they're good, I'd probably steer clear of the first models.

As for the new stuff Bearcat mentioned, that's pretty dazzling stuff to me, awesome even!

Watch this space, guys!


Best regards,
panther3485

WOLFMondo
02-19-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Immermann:
Don't kid your self Wolf, the TFT's ar inferior to CRT's when it comes to contrast.

I'm not kidding myself. Don't own one either then? :P

Seriously, I also used to doubt TFT's in a number of areas but you can get ones very much superior to CRT's now. All the graphics guys where I work won't use anything else. Look at the current models from companies like IIyama, they do 2 CRT's compared to a whole range of TFT's and these are the sorts of monitors that people use proffesionallyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Bearcat99
02-19-2006, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
One word: Wraparound.

EXACTLY!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

hobnail
02-19-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Immermann:
Don't kid your self Wolf, the TFT's ar inferior to CRT's when it comes to contrast.

I'm not kidding myself. Don't own one either then? :P

Seriously, I also used to doubt TFT's in a number of areas but you can get ones very much superior to CRT's now. All the graphics guys where I work won't use anything else. Look at the current models from companies like IIyama, they do 2 CRT's compared to a whole range of TFT's and these are the sorts of monitors that people use proffesionallyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suckers.

Point 1: Everyone in the world owns a CRT, how can I (as a Monitor maker) convince them to buy another one? CRT have a long life and don't wear out too easily. So I can't get people to upgrade from like to like but I can get them to shell out for the Next Big Thing(tm). Same as happened with VCR and DVD-recorders.

Point 2: A top of the line PC CRT will outperform a top of the line TFT in all but size, weight and power consumption. The other benefit of TFT is subjective opinion of reduced eye strain when dealing with still images such as text or (wow!) graphical design which is why your Photoshop monkeys prefer them...

WOLFMondo
02-19-2006, 03:13 PM
Your entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Odranoel1
02-19-2006, 03:38 PM
Can I have my share of flaming please? :-D
I have a 21in sony trinitron sitting right next to a brand new 19in samsung TFT. both run IL2!
Its day and night - the LCD just looks like a window into a virtual world. The CRT looks ... flat, dull, and lacks ... contrast!
The fact is LCD has come a long way...
I have waited long enough, but now my faithful Trinitron is up for sale
;-)

Viper2005_
02-19-2006, 03:42 PM
My room at uni is the size of a basketball player's shoe box. As such my TFT monitor is a real lifesaver!

Bearcat99
02-19-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Hobnail:
Suckers.
Point 1: Everyone in the world owns a CRT, how can I (as a Monitor maker) convince them to buy another one? CRT have a long life and don't wear out too easily. So I can't get people to upgrade from like to like but I can get them to shell out for the Next Big Thing(tm). Same as happened with VCR and DVD-recorders.

Point 2: A top of the line PC CRT will outperform a top of the line TFT in all but size, weight and power consumption. The other benefit of TFT is subjective opinion of reduced eye strain when dealing with still images such as text or (wow!) graphical design which is why your Photoshop monkeys prefer them...

You sure are opinionated.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

We dont even know where this OLED technology will go to... but I bet if given a choice between a 25" CRT and a monitor that can cover a wall, a counter top, or a wraparo7und enclosure.. a lot of folks will take the other one as opposed to the 25" box.

Dew-Claw
02-19-2006, 09:47 PM
We dont even know where this OLED technology will go to... but I bet if given a choice between a 25" CRT and a monitor that can cover a wall, a counter top, or a wraparo7und enclosure.. a lot of folks will take the other one as opposed to the 25" box.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/crystal_ball2.jpg
I see...
a room...
The walls are painted so no matter where you touch...a menu opens.
touch a corner, and draw the size of the moniter you want and launch IL2....
it fades from here, hard to see....

major_setback
02-20-2006, 01:21 AM
My CRT is perfection. Took me ages to get the contrast, colour and gamma right, but now it's great.
I have yet to see an LCD/Flatscreen/whatever that comes near matchng it. They often have good high contrast these days but lack in rendering shadow detail.

I use my computer for photo-retouching, improving scans etc. I can tell the difference.

I've lost count of the number of times people tell me how great their monitor is only to find out they're looking at ****. Contrast is important, but high contrast isn't everything. I've come to the conclusion that most people can't tell good from bad when it comes to screens, and are easily fooled by a bit of contrast.

My God I'm opinionated (but that's only because I'm right)! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

WOLFMondo
02-20-2006, 02:01 AM
All you LCD doubters say you've not seen one to compete with your CRT's. How many LCD's you actually seen working in front of you? When was the last time you sat in front of one made in the last year with an 8ms or lower response time and played a game on it?

You guys should really go out there and either visit someone who has a good TFT or read some reviews of thelatest IIyama or Hyundai or even Dell TFT's. You'd be very suprised at what you read or see.

WOLFMondo
02-20-2006, 04:29 AM
If you always wait for the next big then, you'll never end up buying anything.

major_setback
02-23-2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
All you LCD doubters say you've not seen one to compete with your CRT's. How many LCD's you actually seen working in front of you? When was the last time you sat in front of one made in the last year with an 8ms or lower response time and played a game on it?

You guys should really go out there and either visit someone who has a good TFT or read some reviews of thelatest IIyama or Hyundai or even Dell TFT's. You'd be very suprised at what you read or see.

Tried a good one 3 weeks ago (8ms response), tweaked and fiddled with all the settings....I'm buying it anyway as it's part of my new system (even though I wasn't at all happy with the picture), but I'll keep the CRT for my photo hobby along with my old comp'.

Klarkash
02-23-2006, 05:44 AM
I have a sony 21" GDM-F520 sitting next to a Hyundai L90D+. I profile them with a Colorvision Spyder 2. They both look markedly different after calibration. I had to make the largest changes to the L90 in the calibration phase, including reducing the brightness to 26% and the contrast to 41% to get the correct RGB balance (this is not according to COlorvision recommendations but the L90 does not have separate colour controls and this gave perfect colour balance and luminance for me). After calibration both screens are near identical, which is a bit of a win for the LCD as it was a couple of hundred quid whereas the Sony was significantly more. The LCD always looks 'sharp'

I felt it important to get the monitor as well calibrated as possible before profiling as the porfile will not actually work in a 3D game. But in hindsight I'm not too worried about the perfect shadow detail when I'm strafing an airfield or going three cars wide into T1 at Zandvoort.

Recently I had to readjust the convergence and landing on the Sony prior to recalibration. I used an old program called displaymate for windows v1.23.

I make use of the two monitor setup in day to day and photoshop work. Due to the position of my steering wheel and the LCD, I use that for rFactor and if I ever get around to setting up my hotas on stands I'll use it for flight sims too.

I think the relevance is you have to calibrate both monitors to get best performance out of them. Then a few weeks later you have to calibrate them again because they change. Unless you are using some form of calibration device you eyes are going to trick you, as they compensate for the monitor and you get used to it's changes.

Properly calibrated LCD's are as good as CRT's for everything except holding the door open. On the plus side for CRT's things tend to look more natural on them, and they aren't restricted to an 'ideal' resolution.

Klarkash
02-23-2006, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
All you LCD doubters say you've not seen one to compete with your CRT's. How many LCD's you actually seen working in front of you? When was the last time you sat in front of one made in the last year with an 8ms or lower response time and played a game on it?


I'm not an LCD doubter at all (read my previous quote) but I do know the the response time has little to do with picture quality, and if fact lower repsonse times indicate the monitor is of a type with inferior colour reproduction and linearity i.e a Twisted nematic (TN) panel like the Hyundai L90D+ which is really 6-bits per colour channel vs 8-bit.

However the L90D+ does seem to be a good implementation of this technology and as I mentioned in my previous post I'm not too worried about those missing 2-bits when playing a game, and when profiled properly the colour reproduction is more than acceptable for photo work.

lbhskier37
02-23-2006, 06:18 AM
I wouldn't buy a monitor that you wanted to hold onto for more than a year or two unless it has HDCP. Vista is going to require HDCP if you want to watch any HD content on it, so all you guys that buy a monitor and hold onto it for 5 years, if you want to watch any HD content on it you better wait a bit. You will still be able to watch this HD content on Vista, but it will be downconverted to lower resolution. I think about the only monitor out there right now with HDCP (im not talking about the LCD TVs some use for monitors) is the Dell 30". Just an FYI for all you monitor shoppers.

Bearcat99
02-23-2006, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
If you always wait for the next big then, you'll never end up buying anything.

True true.... but for me... my 19" Samsung does the trick very well.... so I can hold off for another year or two at least. For me BoB will dictate my next major upgrade.. as everything else I do on my PC I could do on a K-7 or a PIII.

I am just sharing... Im not trying to knock or cheer any one item over another....

Immermann
02-23-2006, 07:25 AM
"They often have good high contrast these days but lack in rendering shadow detail."

Don't mistake high brightness for contrast, cause poor shadows are a good example of that.
I have a Dell 2005FPW, I like it alot for gaming, it is very bright but it's a bit poor in contrast and if you watch any dark content on it you'll also see that it's got some problems with un-eaven backlighting.
When they've sorted out all the problems with OLED they will probably be very nice. No backlighting means very high contrast, and very good uniformity of brightness.

Bearcat99
09-14-2009, 03:18 PM
Loll... about a year later I got a 24"LCD and haven't regretted it one iota...

WTE_Galway
09-14-2009, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Hobnail:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Immermann:
Don't kid your self Wolf, the TFT's ar inferior to CRT's when it comes to contrast.

I'm not kidding myself. Don't own one either then? :P

Seriously, I also used to doubt TFT's in a number of areas but you can get ones very much superior to CRT's now. All the graphics guys where I work won't use anything else. Look at the current models from companies like IIyama, they do 2 CRT's compared to a whole range of TFT's and these are the sorts of monitors that people use proffesionallyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suckers.

Point 1: Everyone in the world owns a CRT, how can I (as a Monitor maker) convince them to buy another one? CRT have a long life and don't wear out too easily. So I can't get people to upgrade from like to like but I can get them to shell out for the Next Big Thing(tm). Same as happened with VCR and DVD-recorders.

Point 2: A top of the line PC CRT will outperform a top of the line TFT in all but size, weight and power consumption. The other benefit of TFT is subjective opinion of reduced eye strain when dealing with still images such as text or (wow!) graphical design which is why your Photoshop monkeys prefer them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have phased out CRT's at work for all but the graphics design bods who cling to dear life to their triple $5000 Sony 21" CRTs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Main reason ? Carrying big CRT's around a multi-story building really sucks as you get older.

M_Gunz
09-14-2009, 06:08 PM
CRT ---> raster

ElAurens
09-14-2009, 06:27 PM
Earlier this summer I went on a quest to replace my CRT. I visited every shop, looked at all the major brands, and some oddball brands too. Haunted different forums, looked and looked and looked.

Ended up just keeping my CRT. Other than size the LCDs did nothing strikingly better than my CRT, and did some things much worse. Since my CRT is paid for, and in stock, I decided just to hold out longer. Maybe in another year or so they will have the black rendering issue and the contrast thing worked out to my satisfaction. And at a price that is competitive.

One sad note is info from one of the other BlitzPigs that works in an industry on the "bleeding edge" of technology. He says the OLEDs are not panning out as expected as they are having trouble scaling them to the sizes needed for computer monitors or televisions. They may be relegated to small devices like cell phones and the like.

M_Gunz
09-14-2009, 08:46 PM
If they can make the pixels small enough then maybe we will yet get good hi-res monitor glasses.
Best part would be that the surface could be spherical like the inside curve of eyeglasses, all equidistant
from the eye pupil.
I've seen I-glasses back in 1999 and they were pretty neat. Add head tracking and you don't need big display.

AndyJWest
09-15-2009, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If they can make the pixels small enough then maybe we will yet get good hi-res monitor glasses.
Best part would be that the surface could be spherical like the inside curve of eyeglasses, all equidistant
from the eye pupil.
I've seen I-glasses back in 1999 and they were pretty neat. Add head tracking and you don't need big display.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that would work. Even someone as short-sighted as me can't focus their eyes that close: you'd need to have some sort of lens to allow for this.

M_Gunz
09-15-2009, 08:21 AM
All I can say is to try on a pair of I-glasses (or I-theatre or some other brand) and you'll have an answer to that.
The technology is 10 years old and it works for a lot of people but who can say for your eyes before you try them?

AndyJWest
09-15-2009, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
All I can say is to try on a pair of I-glasses (or I-theatre or some other brand) and you'll have an answer to that.
The technology is 10 years old and it works for a lot of people but who can say for your eyes before you try them?
From what I can see from websites, I-Glasses must have lenses - they seem to be designed with a focus at about 6ft. You seemed to be suggesting a system without a lens, though perhaps I misunderstood.

This is probably where monitor replacements will ultimately end up (other than a direct connection to the nervous system...), a different view for each eye will of course permit stereoscopic vision. It might be possible to install sensors to calculate the focal distance of eyes, and adjust the view accordingly allowing simulations of distance blurring when focused close etc.

Perhaps there are systems that already do this?

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-15-2009, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:


One sad note is info from one of the other BlitzPigs that works in an industry on the "bleeding edge" of technology. He says the OLEDs are not panning out as expected as they are having trouble scaling them to the sizes needed for computer monitors or televisions. They may be relegated to small devices like cell phones and the like.

That may have changed recently, there have been a few breakthroughs in the last month or so. One company has even invented a process to print OLEDs as cheap as printing newspaper! Even if OLED doesn't pan out, there is another tech being researched called SED which should cost the same as LCDs to manufacture, but uses an electron emitter and a phosphor (similar to CRTs) for each pixel, which would combine the best of both worlds of LCD and CRT.

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/sed_tvs.htm

M_Gunz
09-15-2009, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
All I can say is to try on a pair of I-glasses (or I-theatre or some other brand) and you'll have an answer to that.
The technology is 10 years old and it works for a lot of people but who can say for your eyes before you try them?
From what I can see from websites, I-Glasses must have lenses - they seem to be designed with a focus at about 6ft. You seemed to be suggesting a system without a lens, though perhaps I misunderstood.

This is probably where monitor replacements will ultimately end up (other than a direct connection to the nervous system...), a different view for each eye will of course permit stereoscopic vision. It might be possible to install sensors to calculate the focal distance of eyes, and adjust the view accordingly allowing simulations of distance blurring when focused close etc.

Perhaps there are systems that already do this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't have lenses. The apparent image is a big screen at 6 ft, that's what it looks like. But the best affordable is 640x480.

I would guess that the image on those small flats isn't focused in the same way that earlier development in pilot and astronaut
goggle-huds were done. The lit pixels only make sense when your eyes do focus at some distance beyond the "lens". The app I
heard about over 20 years ago would allow the user to look through clear goggle/faceshield at a panel and wherever his eyes/her
pointed there might be hud data on the gauge, switch, circuit breaker or external object. I don't see why the same development
wouldn't carry to opaque displays though the pupil-tracking part is not in I-glasses.

One friend of mine bought the I-glasses after trying some out in 1999. He got the intro deal on I-glasses for $600. I've seen
em 2 years ago for as low as $279. They're great. You don't have to turn your head to watch TV and are good enough to run a
PC through TV-out but you have to be able to live with 1990's-type fuzzy. You can be face-down on the couch and still watch TV.
Downside is they're not so light you'd want to spend hours on end with them on, day after day.

Consider what kind of framerate you can get with 640x480 with full AA and filtering in IL2? Couple it up with TIR and you're
virtual. It's not total immersion, you can still look below the screens if you ditch the goggle covers to find keyboard, etc.

Retail is now $279 (http://www.i-glassesstore.com/i-theater-hr.html)

The i-Theater HR delivers a crisp, vivid-color, VGA resolution (640 x 480) video image which is equivalent to a 70 inch video screen viewed from a distance of 8.5 feet

Here's 800x600 for -only-$899! (http://www.i-glassesstore.com/i-glasses-i3pc.html)

doraemil
09-16-2009, 06:42 PM
I think its going to be OLED vs SED vs LCD . . .



I still love my triniton 21's, got them all for free when my old job was giving them away after upgrading to LCD's.

Problem is I'm down to my last 2, the other 3 burnt out, and 1 was destroyed during college shenanigans. The last one I had to donate to the electronic recycle center. It looked fine but had that high pitched whine that some people can't hear but I can. And it was driving me insane . . .

I rue that day as I could've stored them at my parents house.

LCD's have gotten way better that I expected. I remember you couldn't even play video games or watch videos because they would have a ghost effect.

Still though I don't have $$ to get the LCD's that would be able to counter the Triniton.

I know the day is coming when the corners will start blurring . . . or it will start whining and all the tricks to stop it won't work.



But for setting new PC's nothing beats the plug and play of a LCD. CRT's tweaking can get numbing if you're setting up a great many PC's.

RAF_OldBuzzard
09-17-2009, 07:18 AM
There are a number of good LCDs out there.

However, I'll keep my Sony FW900.
http://www.accurateit.com/details.asp?iid=1134

It's big, it's heavy, it uses a lot of power, and produces a lot of heat.

It's the monitor that GOD would use if he had a PC.

WOLFMondo
09-17-2009, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Earlier this summer I went on a quest to replace my CRT. I visited every shop, looked at all the major brands, and some oddball brands too. Haunted different forums, looked and looked and looked.

Ended up just keeping my CRT. Other than size the LCDs did nothing strikingly better than my CRT, and did some things much worse. Since my CRT is paid for, and in stock, I decided just to hold out longer. Maybe in another year or so they will have the black rendering issue and the contrast thing worked out to my satisfaction. And at a price that is competitive.


The Dell 2408WFP does black quite well, as do the higher end Benq's. I agree though, allot are still not great at doing black.

I recently lent a friend one of these to replace his broken Ilyama vision master pro 513 which was and is an awesome CRT. He was going to buy another but then forked out the 400 pounds to buy the Dell as he was so utterly impressed by it.

The downside is you still have to pay a premium price for a good LCD/TFT and at the moment they are going up.

Urufu_Shinjiro
09-17-2009, 09:43 AM
If you want good color reproduction with good contrast and dark blacks you need to pop down the extra $ to get a monitor with an S-PVA or H-IPS panel, the IPS panels being better than the PVA's but both are vastly superior to TN panels.

squareusr
09-17-2009, 02:01 PM
Crappy TFTs i use at work totally fail at representing subtle color differences - but judging colors is not my job and i'm glad the people who decide about new hardware would rather buy three cheap TNs than one "professional" screen which won't give a tenth of the advantage given by an increase in number of screens per workstation. If i'd want a CRT, i could always grab one of those that we did not have time yet to throw away. The abundance of doorstops is just amazing.

At home i also have a TN-TFT, but it's a lot better than those at work (in all aspects, and it has old-school 5:4 rather than the widescreen format that only got introduced because it was cheaper to manufacture for a given diagonal inch rating). But also on that display it's difficult to separate different dark hues in front of a bright background.

Next to it sits a CRT which has served me well for many years, yet now i could not be bothered to ever read more than three lines of continous text on it, because of the lack of sharpness and the resulting constant futile attempts at focusing. It's really so bad compared to the TFT that i mostly use it . Admittedly, the CRT is driven close to it's limits, but for me resolution is key so a slower line frequency is not an option. These days i'm quite convinced that CRT was a lot better when it wasn't ten years old and never reached the standards of modern CRTs, but now the only advantage i would truly grant CRTs is color representation at the very, very high-end limit (think "golden ear" HiFi nuts) and, of course, graceful use of lowered screen resolution (this is relevant for gaming, at least if you don't limit yourself to games 10 years old...).

My suggestion: get one CRT if you really have to work with subtle color differences, but fill the rest of your (then possibly still empty) table with as many TFTs as you can fit there. Even as a "color person" you will still want them for working with text and the like, which you'd still have to do at least as often as graphical stuff.

PS: the original OLED topic: don't believe the hype, nobody has found materials for OLEDs that don't degrade as fast as a sliced apple in fresh air and about "360 degrees surround displays"... what miracle technology do you expect to crunch the numbers for those pixels? To outsiders, performance growth in GPUs may seem like a fairy tale, but the reality is that they are constantly struggling at the edge of physical possibility and miserable performance-per-watt ratio aren't mistakes but inevitable tradeoffs.