>>108616842
Are you willing to pay $10k for one? Because that's how expensive they will be with the size of the market for them.

>>108616842
A market? you would not sell more than 5000 of that per year. Desktop computing is already a dying market.

>>108617252
It's literally bigger than it's ever been

>>108616842
They're environmental biohazards full of lead.

>>108616842
Because its literally impossible. CRTs were the product of more than half a century of intensive research and development and deep institutional knowledge that has been almost entirely lost now. Whilst some information could be recovered from various places, and new technologies might help somewhat, recreating CRTs will still be a massive, incredibly costly process.

>>108616842
Sorry zoom zoom. There are those of us here old enough to have actually used that shit. And there in lies the truth. They are and were and will always be SHIT. There is a reason flat HD panels exist.

File: crt_monitor.png (90.3 KB)

90.3 KB PNG

>>108617356
Yep. 38 years old here. I have nostalgia for crt's but they are not as good as even a tn panel.
>But muh infinite contrast ratio!
This bullshit myth pisses me off the most. Pic related, this is what they actually look like, not like OP's pic. They are dark grey, they cannot display deep blacks. A dark room will help but there is enough residual light that you still won't get deep blacks. The phosphorus coating makes this impossible. I can say this fact and someone will come on here and tell me I am wrong because they have no backlight like an oled completely ignoring the fact I presented to them. A crt's true contrast ration when accounting for the phosphorous is terrible.
They also caused eye pain after about four hours. Too big, took up a lot of desk space, often relegated to a corner of a desk at a 45 degree angle out of necessity.
The real advantage they had was they had no native resolution. You could display any resolution up to their maximum resolution and there was no pixel scaling.

>>108617303
Did you know any gasoline powered prop plane still uses leaded gasoline? Lead in vapor form is infinitely worse than lead trapped in glass.

>>108617356
They are better than LCDs.

I am using a CRT right this second to read this thread. I prefer the CRT, lcds are not good. I hate the way they look. All the text has this weird halo around it. There is of course horrific motion blur and other motion artifacts. The back-light bleed is nasty. I have a 1920x1200 lcd sitting off to my left, its not connect to anything, because it looks like shit.

>>108616842
factories that make monitors threw out their tooling to make crts ages ago, it would take a huge investment to produce new ones for not much return

>>108617269
delusional
CRT sales peaked above 100 million units per year

>>108617427
Both things can be bad

>>108617620
I was referring to desktop computing

>>108616842
we have been over this dozens of times, just check the archive

still, I hold out hope that one day we can potentially have (likely very expensive) artisan CRTs from extremely small production runs, perhaps.

>>108617356
The CRT monitor I used in the 2000s was dull and blurry and jumping from that to a 1920x1200 LCD felt like a huge upgrade.

>>108616842
I have a little admiral CRT TV that doesn't even have any kind of input, just coax and power. Sometimes I think of using it for something but that never goes beyond the thought.

>>108616842
Not only is there still a market for CRTs, there are companies still manufacturing them, just not for the general public. Modern CRT fab is targetted at niche industrial, scientific, and medical applications where low latency and analog properties are useful.

Unironically lost the technology and/or illegal

Wouldn't we just make SED or similar technology instead of CRT?

File: 1738453655696367.jpg (23.9 KB)

23.9 KB JPG

There will be no reason to want a CRT once the persistence of modern displays finally reaches the point of having similar motion clarity at a reasonable price point. The bad news is that basically nobody is investing in that because it's less profitable to make a monitor that outperforms everything on the market at 120 FPS when instead you can push for blurry 480+ that requires consoomers to also buy increasingly expensive graphics cards and anti-solutions like VRR and AI-generated frames.

>>108616842
>there's clearly a market for them nowadays
An extremely niche market that only wants vintage e-waste and not actually new stuff
>so how come no manufacturer has started making new CRTs to sell to that crowd?
Because no one will spend $5k+ on a bulky CRT when all they want is a dumpster find

>>108617634
One is like a trillion times worse. My point was that a little lead trapped in glass is a non issue, not even a drop in the bucket compared to other lead sources entering the environment. Won't even make a measurable mark.

>>108616842
We need to find something to put in the water supply that would make normies like CRTs again

>>108617303
just use tungsten instead

>>108619265
g-sync pulsar looks promising, seeing the 2nd or 3rd gen of that tech on microLED will be great, I can't wait for 10 years from now :)

File: 1772478683610448.jpg (91 KB)

91 KB JPG

>>108619265
until we get a high enough refresh rate that we can simulate the photon beam, it will not be close enough

>>108616842
because the market is niche as fuck and clearly not worth the price it would cost to restart a whole production with factories and shit
also you crt cucks are only buying old crts at 70-100 dollars no one is going to buy a brand new crt at 1000 dollars