It's misleading to say that a CRT has "8.3ms latency".
CRTs have effectively zero latency.
60Hz scanout takes ~8.3ms to reach the middle of the frame, but that's nothing to do with the CRT.
This is more of an issue with how review sites are measuring display latency.
I have long argued that they should not be taking measurements at the middle of the display - that's the worst possible location for it.
They should be taking two measurements:
- The very top of the display. This tells you how much processing latency the display has.
- The very bottom of the display. This tells you how much latency scanout adds.
Why two measurements? Because not all displays draw the image the same way.
A plasma TV updates the panel globally rather than scanning out the image. This means that it has to buffer a frame (minimum latency possible is ~16.7ms) but then it draws an image to the entire display at once in a very short amount of time.
So a plasma TV might have "20ms" latency when measured at the center of the screen, but it will measure 20ms at the top and bottom of the screen too.
It's the same with LCDs. There are no globally-updated LCD TVs/Monitors that I'm aware of, but some displays use a "fast scanout" to draw the image.
This means that they will buffer a frame, but then scan out the image in a fraction of that time. It may take 16.7ms to render a frame at 60 FPS, but a 240Hz G-Sync monitor will draw that on the screen in 4.2ms (one frame at 240Hz). Many televisions do the same thing.
The faster the scanout, the less the image skews with fast horizontal motion - which is certainly a benefit to gaming.
If you have a computer or a tablet, drag a full-height window side-to-side and look at the bottom edge. You will see that vertical lines bend as the bottom lags behind the top of the image.
I'd argue that the delay required to buffer a frame is probably worth it for the improved motion handling that you get with a global scanout - especially as we move to higher refresh rates.
I believe some (or all?) VR displays are using global scanout because it's a factor in preventing motion sickness.
The smoothness of image on my 21" CRT 10+ years ago.. at this point I doubt technology can reach that level again. 144hz is nice but still feels worse.
Yes, this is often overlooked. The flicker of a CRT not only improved motion clarity, it also significantly improved motion smoothness.
There are two white circles moving back and forth across the screen. Both are animated at ~10 FPS.
The upper circle is displayed for the entire duration, while the lower circle is only visible for 1/6 of the frames.
If you cover up the circles and view them one at a time, you should see that the lower circle is more distinct in motion, and also appears to be moving
much more smoothly.
The demonstrates how modern displays compare against CRTs when you display a source at the same framerate - though the difference is larger than this example can show.
It's why 60 FPS games at home or in the arcades were so impressive on CRTs, while 60 FPS doesn't look nearly as impressive on a fast gaming monitor or OLED TV these days.
Have you gamed on an OLED?
Current OLEDs are pretty bad for gaming.
In theory they could be near-perfect gaming displays but they are only just starting to get black frame insertion options, and the options they have are extremely limited since they're literally drawing black frames in-between every other video frame, rather than driving the panel in a more CRT-like manner.
It's an improvement, but a minor one. The best option right now is NVIDIA's ULMB, but it also has several limitations - such as not working below 85Hz (though people have figured out a way to force that on some monitors).
No, CRTs are still significantly better than any other display type in a few key areas, such as motion clarity and smoothness.
The way they render low resolution computer-generated content (not video) can also be preferable to upscaling on modern displays.
Vinyl records are worse than modern digital audio in every possible way, but they make nice collectible items for people that like having them framed or laid out on a shelf.
If I could buy a modern, high resolution, high refresh rate CRT monitor, I would.
CRT televisions - even HDTVs - were far lower quality displays, except perhaps for broadcast monitors.
I game on a 10yo TH- 50PZ850a Panny plasma.
Its been a great tv but I shudder to think what it's input lag is.
Plus the PS4 is connected through a Denon reciever. What input lag is that adding? Would it be better to connect directly to the tv?
It shouldn't be adding any latency if it's just set to pass through the signal and not apply any video processing.
Panasonic's Plasmas have typically been in the 20-40ms range for latency, depending on the model.
The math in the OP is still not 100% correct though. Here is a video explaining more about how CRTs show images and also how the SNES calculates everything from frame to frame:
That video was great, thanks.
