Would a modern CRT make any sense?

something like this?
https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/

sethk said:

With a 960-1000hz oled you could run an electron beam / crt phosphor simulation that was a very good CRT replica with similar MpRT (motion clarity) and look to the CRT of your choice, minimal lag and still brighter than most crts. It would also keep many other advantages compared to a traditional CRT.

Click to expand...

HDR is a "brighter range of colors" , or "brighter color volume ceiling". HDR has a much higher and wider color volume ceiling than SDR (Standard Dynamic Range). SDR is around 100 to 150 nit technically, and up to maybe 300 nit functionally for modern screens in bright room usage.

What you'd get out of an aged fw900 crt now, without compromising parameters, even after refreshing (according to google) :

"
FW900’s maximum brightness remains relatively uniform across the screen: [1, 2]

• 10% to 50% screen: ~115 to 125 nits
• 100% full screen: ~95 to 110 nits [1, 2, 3]

Usage Context in 2026:
Because these monitors are now decades old, actual performance depends entirely on the cathode tube's wear. Degraded tubes or units needing G2 voltage/WinDAS calibration often max out lower (60-80 nits). To preserve the remaining lifespan of the components, most users calibrate to about 80–100 nits and use the monitor in dim ambient lighting. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
"


HDR color


Modern screens have an enormously larger palette of colors that provides much more details in colored objects, details that aren't even there otherwise, and provides much more contrast with the color-brightness range. I think people diminish the impact of HDR when they just say "it's brighter" as if it was SDR's colors remaining relative to each other and just being ramped up a little higher. I don't know if people imply that intentionally or not, or are in some cases just not being very knowledgeable about how HDR works, or maybe just assuming people know what they mean, - but the end result when people just say "brighter" is that it often comes off as a major downplaying to me. CRT doesn't even have HDR brightness and contrast, and it is at 16.7 million colors instead of 1.07 billion colors of a modern 10-bit HDR gaming display. A 12-bit capable display would be able to show 68.7 billion colors.

. . . .

sethk said:

With a 960-1000hz oled you could run an electron beam / crt phosphor simulation that was a very good CRT replica with similar MpRT (motion clarity)

Click to expand...

I think the fw900 crt gets max around 2560x1600 at 75hz, so 75 fpsHz of motion definition/pathing articulation/smoothness at a sub 4k resolution on a small screen size. Even if it gets really good motion clarity/blur reduction, that's another big tradeoff. Depending on the age of the phosphors, it might get 1ms to 3ms persistence.

Every time you double the Hz (on an oled), you cut the sample-and-hold "persistence" blur by half.

According to Blur Busters, eliminating motion blur on a non-strobed LCD or OLED (sample-and-hold) display requires reaching 1000 Hz natively. [1, 2, 3]
The transition thresholds define this path to perfect CRT-level clarity: [1]

• 60 Hz: Standard non-strobed sample-and-hold display; maximum motion blur.
• 120 Hz to 240 Hz: Reduces motion blur by roughly 50% to 75% compared to 60 Hz.
• 480 Hz: Considered the minimum threshold to simulate near-perfect, blur-free motion without flickering.
• 1000 Hz: The mathematical equivalent to human-perceived CRT motion clarity without any strobing or Black Frame Insertion (BFI)

Click to expand...

If you start off with a 100fps native before you amplify the frame rate x5 or 10x , your base is ~ 10ms frames in regard to when you see new (native) motion states and have a window to react/see your reaction (locally). It would also be 1/2 crt level blur at ~ 2ms when amplified x5 to 500 fpsHz on a 500hz capable OLED, which is still quite good, and when amplified to 1000fpsHz on a 1000Hz capable OLED it would be 1ms persistence/blur which is comparable to a crt (especially aged phosphors ones that remain) , so you wouldn't need to emulate anything as far as reducing blur to crt levels once you hit 1000fpsHz, though you might want to emulate the crt "look" for low bit arcade games or something, but you could get that with filters more or less instead I think, (and that is kind of niche, anyway).

image from: Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays






. . . . . . .


Amplifying a strong base native frame rate like 100fps solid would:

• keep frame lag reasonable for most not-extremely-competitive games at ~ 10ms , which is where 120Hz OLED gaming TVs input lag were at for quite some time, and if not competing in a LAN gaming competition, online gaming server dynamics reduces how meaningful extreme local fpsHz is vs the server relationship physics and tick rates, since you have a "displacer beast" type effect on locations/time, plus your local game is simulating action state frames while waiting on the server's low tick rate updates of interpolated results, among other things. Nvidia has some lag reducing tech tricks, too, as someone mentioned. The version I saw was mainly for sideways movement "doom" like shooters panning left and right, where it was using projection type guesswork to reduce input lag (which appeared to be similar to some of the tech VR headsets use).
• 
  
• that 100fps native x5 or x10 would be keeping a solid amplified frame rate of 500 or 1000, so no VRR would be necessary. The frame durations would all be the same (2ms or 1ms), and there would also be no OLED VRR flicker.
• 
  
• 100fps solid would provide a smaller gap of time that AI/machine learning would have to guess between in order to "tween" manufactured frames. The higher the native frame rate and the higher the native resolution of the screen and the resolution you are amplifying from (1440p upscaled via DLSS quality on a 4k screen, or nearly 4k (4096x2034) upscaled via DLSS quality on a 6k screen), the higher the % accuracy of the manufactured frames will be. In other words, the less that has changed between frames due to having a higher frequency and finer detail, the better it will end up. "you can't get blood from a stone", at least not without worse results (bad input lag, more artifacting, + more obvious artifacts with lower resolutions). I recently saw someone saying something like : "dlss+MultiFrameGen makes good frame rate gaming better, it doesn't make bad frame rate gaming good".

.

pendragon1 said:

something like this?
https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/

Click to expand...

Yes exactly - mprt from electron beam / phosphor fade simulation is very cool, and I have tried it on my 240hz oled. With 480hz you can see the improvements and at 960 it should be perfect.
The beam tracing / per pixel impulse based method of crt illumination is what gives CRTs such sharp motion clarity at lower refresh rates (no sample and hold effect) and recreating this on an oled using per pixel phosphor fade has the same exact “feel” as CRTs. It’s not about motion interpolation and making up data, it’s using an accurate simulation to solve the psycho-visual effects of seeing the same lit pixels fixed in space over an extended period of time. Two different approaches, but I am definitely looking forward to this method as an alternative to frame interpolation alone at high frame rates. It’s a very good use of that high frame rate possible on upcoming Oleds.

I know other technical problems would be introduced, but I wonder if dual gun CRTs would have found success in TVs/monitors if the tech had continued to advance.

Theoretically, it could have allowed almost double the refresh rate, at the cost of signal (and beam) complexity.

https://vintagetek.org/dual-beam-crt-guns/

.

Nobu said:

I know other technical problems would be introduced, but I wonder if dual gun CRTs would have found success in TVs/monitors if the tech had continued to advance.

Theoretically, it could have allowed almost double the refresh rate, at the cost of signal (and beam) complexity.

https://vintagetek.org/dual-beam-crt-guns/

Click to expand...

That is interesting, but it points out that - yes the refresh rate is poor on crts. Blur reduction from higher hz is part of the gain for LCD and OLED, but the other gain is motion definition/pathing articulation/smoothness (and even animation cycle frames) from higher fpsHz. That aspect overall probably has appreciable gains to at least 500fpsHz if not higher.


warning: photo "gallery" inside this quote

Click to expand...

.

1000 fpsHZ using brute force multiFrameGen is the goal. 1000 fpsHz would be crt clarity then, without using crt emulation, bfi, partial scan, etc.. Before we can achieve that (1000 Hz OLEDs), having ~ 500 fpsHZ solid at 4k, 4k+ would be only 2ms / 2pixel persistence which would very close, even if not pristine yet.

1000 fpsHz once available will be game over, at least for crt persistence / image clarity comparisons, and that without any (especially HDR) image brightness reduction, flicker (conciously visible or not can cause fatigue over time), etc.

Click to expand...

"According to Blur Busters, eliminating motion blur on a non-strobed LCD or OLED (sample-and-hold) display requires reaching 1000 Hz natively. [1, 2, 3]
The transition thresholds define this path to perfect CRT-level clarity: [1]

• 60 Hz: Standard non-strobed sample-and-hold display; maximum motion blur.
• 120 Hz to 240 Hz: Reduces motion blur by roughly 50% to 75% compared to 60 Hz.
• 480 Hz: Considered the minimum threshold to simulate near-perfect, blur-free motion without flickering.
• 1000 Hz: The mathematical equivalent to human-perceived CRT motion clarity without any strobing or Black Frame Insertion (BFI)

"

-------------------------------------



If you have post DLSS quality boosting your native frame rate to 133fps (7.5ms), after applying MultiFrameGen x4 you'd end up with 505 fpsHz (average, not solid).


A few versions with realistic numbers below :

. . .


125 fpsHz (8ms) minimum with multiFrameGen x4 version = between 135 fps and 145 fps post dlss quality upscale

To get 500fps solid after mFGen x4, where you'd no longer need vrr and wouldn't have varying frame render times, you'd need a 125fps solid . To achieve that solid, uninterrupted 125 fps, you would generally need to be between 135 fps and 145 fps average (post dlss quality upscale).

Click to expand...

. .

100 fpsHz (10ms) minimum with multFrameGen x5 version = between 120 to 140 fps average post dlss quality upscale

To ensure your frame rate never dips below 100 FPS, you need a native average of roughly 120 to 140 FPS. The specific number depends on the 1% lows and your hardware's frame-pacing consistency. [1, 2]
Because PC games experience sudden demand spikes (like when entering a new area or triggering an explosion), your "1% lows" will typically be 15 - 20 % lower than your average frame rate. [1, 2]

The Math Behind The Dips

• The 80/20 Rule of Frame Variance: In modern PC gaming, the slowest 1% of your rendered frames (the Low metric) dictates when you "feel" stutters. If your average is 120 FPS, your 99th percentile frame rate is generally around 100 FPS. [1, 2]
• The Target: If your target floor is 100 FPS, the math dictates that a 15% variance requires an average of approximately 117 FPS.
• The Reality: To account for engine-level micro-stutters and sudden drops, most gamers aim for a 130 - 140 FPS average to completely eliminate sub 100 FPS dips.

Click to expand...

If you had post quality DLSS upscale frame rate of 120 (8.3ms). to 140 fps (7.14ms), you could multiply your 100fps (10ms) minimum x5 to 500fpsHz, or perhaps in the future x10 to 1000 fpsHz. Then no VRR necessary, 2ms persistence at 500fpsHZ, 1ms persistence (crt equivalent) at 1000 fpsHz.

You could keep running VRR optionally, too of course, if you wanted. Depending on the graph it might even reduce your effective lag slightly, but I'd keep an eye on the frame rate minimum in regard to the framerender latency "lag". I'd probably want my native framerender latency to be 10ms or less at the worst (low end of the graph), even if higher mFGen multiples are available eventually, and even if nvidia improves their latency tricks.

. . .

With flagship gpus, post dlss quality upscaling, 120 to 140fps is already doable on a good number of games, and that number increase a lot if you dial them in a bit (e.g. turn off path tracing). Future gens of gpus, perhaps even those a tier down from top, will be as powerful or more powerful in regard to native fps, too (and probably with better ai upscaling chips and software, maybe better path tracing performance, etc).

search result:

An estimated 25 to 30 popular modern PC games hit the 120fps to 140fps sweet spot at 4K resolution on an RTX 5090 using DLSS without Frame Generation. This subset primarily consists of extremely well-optimized or purely rasterized titles rather than extreme path-traced games.

Because of the sheer horsepower of the Blackwell architecture, modern games fall into distinct categories regarding the 120fps–140fps 4K target: [1]

• Direct Hits (120fps–140fps): Popular titles that use rasterization or moderate ray tracing hit this exact window effortlessly at 4K using DLSS (Quality mode). Examples include Call of Duty: Black Ops 6, Battlefield 2042, Cyberpunk 2077 (with standard Ray Tracing, not Path Tracing), Marvel's Spider-Man 2, Hogwarts Legacy, and Forza Horizon 6. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Overkill (>145fps): Highly competitive or lightweight esports titles—like Apex Legends, Overwatch 2, Counter-Strike 2, Valorant, and The Finals—vastly exceed 140fps even at native 4K or with DLSS. [, 2]
• Under Target (<120fps): Next-gen, fully path-traced titles such as Cyberpunk 2077 (with Path Tracing enabled), Alan Wake 2, or Black Myth: Wukong demand extreme rendering loads. Even with an RTX 5090 and DLSS Super Resolution, these will naturally fall into the 60fps–85fps range without Frame Generation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] <--- you can turn off path tracing in their settings though, optionally

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

.

After carefully thinking about this I came to the conclusion that the best summary to what FG is is single word: SCAM
It would not be and might have its use cases like these suggested by some people if it was reprojection. Otherwise trading latency for fake frames is just... ridiculous.

Like why would I even like such smooth motion?
Why wouldn't I like more cinematic look?

CRT doesn't make image overly smooth in an artificial way but makes motion sharp in an artificial way. That is something completely different. Incomparable.

XoR_ said:

After carefully thinking about this I came to the conclusion that the best summary to what FG is is single word: SCAM
It would not be and might have its use cases like these suggested by some people if it was reprojection. Otherwise trading latency for fake frames is just... ridiculous.

Like why would I even like such smooth motion?
Why wouldn't I like more cinematic look?

CRT doesn't make image overly smooth in an artificial way but makes motion sharp in an artificial way. That is something completely different. Incomparable.

Click to expand...

Not to mention you need even more hardware to support this. Meanwhile CRT just makes clear motion naturally.

Reject modernity. Embrace tradition.

. .

jbltecnicspro said:

Not to mention you need even more hardware to support this. Meanwhile CRT just makes clear motion naturally.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call strobing "natural".
Also needing more hardware... not an issue if we have hardware.

I just don't like these fake frames because the fake frames that we got are pretty bad because they make games more laggy.
When Oculus did frame gen I loved it because it solved the main issue. When my PC wouldn't keep up producing 90 frames per second I would get game running 45 fps and there would be more lag but I wouldn't feel that lag at all because what I interacted with and which was used for e.g. aiming would run at 90fps.

If we had proper reprojection frame gen and it would eliminate perceived latency instead of increasing it then flock yeah, let's all get excited about it.
And even then I wouldn't say it would be any reason why we don't need or want strobed displays or even that we should use it because it is always better to have more fps.

XoR_ said:

Like why would I even like such smooth motion?

Click to expand...

Because it looks more realistic? Real life doesn't have a frame rate, if you follow a moving object with your eyes, it is clear and smooth. Well, get a high enough frame rate and that is what it looks like on a screen too. When you get in the 1000fps range, you are starting to talk completely imperceptible frames, the motion will just be smooth.

XoR_ said:

Why wouldn't I like more cinematic look?

Click to expand...

That sounds like the "30 fps is enough for anyone" argument. Deciding that low FPS is the "right" was of doing things and then that we should use old tech to make it look less blurry. I mean if you want cinematic gaming I guess you can cap your framerate at 24fps, play on CRT or something else with strobing (actual film projectors generally strobe the whole image with a shutter at 72hz, not a line-by-line drawing like a CRT) and be happy.

You'll have to forgive me, and most of the rest of the world, if we don't want to join you though and wan tot enjoy high FPS gaming, and even just high FPS desktop.

If frame rate was something you chose in separation to anything else or something only limited by monitor then there is rarely any point to not using highest fps you can use.
In reality fps is not free lunch and FG is terrible compromise which causes massive input lag. In this case its better to just forego it and play with 'cinematic look'.
Of course even 120fps is more cinematic in how it looks compared to much higher fps.