electricharbor30 said:It depends, I guess... I used to have this 22" CRT that could technically handle a 2048*1536 resolution, but man, everything looked tiny and the refresh rate was absolutely abysmal... For me, the sweet spot was probably 1600*1200 at 100 Hz... generally, the higher the refresh rate, the better... though if you're working with an old, beat-up CRT, maybe it makes sense to dial the refresh rate back a little, but I wouldn't go any lower than 60 Hz.
Yeah, sure, if you care more about the "health" of some old junk than your own eyes.
What do you mean 60Hz, for crying out loud?
I thought the standard was at least 75Hz just to get a flicker-free image, though even that was kind of a flickering mess (just look at a monitor from a sharp side angle and you'll see the massive flickering).
Because of that, those later generations using Trinitron tubes or similar tech could push past 100Hz, obviously depending on what resolution you picked.
That’s why the rule is: you gotta run your CRT at its optimal resolution (linked to the screen size! A 17" and 19" usually had the same resolution, but the 17" made everything look smaller) with the
highest possible refresh rate.
There’s no compromise there. Especially nowadays, why would you try to save your monitor when you specifically picked its quality based on what you needed?
Of course, this whole refresh rate thing doesn't apply to LCD monitors since the tech is totally different. You aren't dealing with electron beams hitting phosphor dots that glow and fade; instead, the backlight stays on until the next signal change, and the refresh rate just shows how often that update happens. So for static images, a standard 60Hz LCD is fine, but for fast stuff like gaming, a higher refresh rate helps prevent ghosting and motion blur...
Sure, it might be a bit old-school advice, but you buy gear to serve you. You push it to get the most bang for your buck. Why bother being stingy just to make a CRT last another 10 years?
