The project itself doesn't go any further with a 3D-printed shell or other refinements because according to dooglehead, the resulting CRT VR headset was not the most impressive thing ever. The YouTuber includes a 3-minute gameplay segment going through various VR titles that include driving, shooting, role playing, and more, while showing the CRT screen in action. It looks exactly like you'd expect — a greyish luminescent image with some character.
Dooglehead's first comment was that he wished the screen was in color because in some games it made it hard to distinguish between certain elements. Secondly, the screens felt blurry: not due to the 640×480 (per eye) resolution, but because the electron beam wasn't perfectly in focus. The fact that it was then hitting the screen at a perpendicular angle just exacerbated this issue.
The biggest positive to using the CRTs was the lack of screen door effect (SDE) since they have a natural anti-aliased look that blends pixels to its advantage. VR screens are especially susceptible to SDE, since they're so close to our eyes.
The YouTuber closed out the video by saying he won't switch to this DIY CRT VR headset mainly because he prefers a color screen. He was glad to have experienced this mashup of retro and modern tech, but it's simply too outdated to use on a daily basis. CRT shaders can likely emulate a similar look, and manufacturers keep shipping insanely high-res displays on VR headsets these days that combat the SDE. But we have to commend dooglehead for seeing this crazy idea all the way through to the end.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News , or add us as a preferred source , to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he\u2019s not working, you\u2019ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-17/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Hassam Nasir Social Links Navigation Contributing Writer Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.
edzieba VR screens are especially susceptible to SDE, since they're so close to our eyes. Utter nonsense. The reason SDE is common for VR displays is because they are spread over a massive field of view, which means pixel density (pixels per degree subtended angle) is extremely low. Since you do not view the display without the optical engine in front of it, the display density of the panel itself, and the physical distance of the panel itself from your eyes, are irrelevant. For example, with a 90° horizontal FoV, a 1920×1080 panel will only have 12 pixels per degree. For example, the Quest 3 has the display panels less than half the distance from your eyes as the Rift DK1. But the SDE is dramatically reduced on the Quest 3 compared to the DK1. What really affects SDE is the fill factor of a display: the ratio of area of emitting pixels – the bits that emit light (for OLEDs, or the non-aperture-masked areas of a CRT, or the translucent areas of an LCD – to the dark areas (the support electronics between pixels in an LCD or OLED, or the aperture mask in a CRT, or the gaps between scan lines in a CRT). The lower the fill factor, the worse the SDE. Reply
w_barath Hello, ionizing radiation is a real thing with CRTs at this range from your head. While the original product surely had strontium, barium, or lead formula glass, that is still engineered for a standard viewing distance of 30-100cm from the display. Not sub-2.5cm! That's also assuming the device has proper shielding in the housing, which this clearly does not. Reply
Draaza w_barath said: Hello, ionizing radiation is a real thing with CRTs at this range from your head. While the original product surely had strontium, barium, or lead formula glass, that is still engineered for a standard viewing distance of 30-100cm from the display. Not sub-2.5cm! That's also assuming the device has proper shielding in the housing, which this clearly does not. This was literally my thought upon seeing the headline. I know it's just a silly throwaway project but please don't deliver a concentrated beam of highly energetic electrons (which produce x-rays when they hit the phosphor) directly to your retina Reply
heffeque Draaza said: … but please don't deliver a concentrated beam of highly energetic electrons (which produce x-rays when they hit the phosphor) directly to your retina This. Reply
fireaza edzieba said: What really affects SDE is the fill factor of a display: the ratio of area of emitting pixels – the bits that emit light (for OLEDs, or the non-aperture-masked areas of a CRT, or the translucent areas of an LCD – to the dark areas (the support electronics between pixels in an LCD or OLED, or the aperture mask in a CRT, or the gaps between scan lines in a CRT). The lower the fill factor, the worse the SDE. This is why the "OLED or no sale!" attitude isn't as cut and dry as many people think. Yes, OLED has superior contrast over LCD. However, there's very few OLED panels that use an RGB stripe sub-pixel arrangement, most use pentile. This means that even at the same resolution, an OLED panel can have noticeable SDE over an LCD panel, simply due to the fact that the sub-pixels are more tightly packed together on the LCD. Considering how much of an impact the SDE can have on a VR headset, a moderate reduction in contrast is a worthy sacrifice. Reply
edzieba fireaza said: This is why the "OLED or no sale!" attitude isn't as cut and dry as many people think. Yes, OLED has superior contrast over LCD. However, there's very few OLED panels that use an RGB stripe sub-pixel arrangement, most use pentile. This means that even at the same resolution, an OLED panel can have noticeable SDE over an LCD panel, simply due to the fact that the sub-pixels are more tightly packed together on the LCD. Considering how much of an impact the SDE can have on a VR headset, a moderate reduction in contrast is a worthy sacrifice. There's an additional gotcha with OLED panels: pixel on switching time. Whilst OLED grey-to-grey times are very good, the time for a pixel to go from completely off (true black) to any level of 'on' (but more pronounced on low levels) is much higher. This is why OLED have the 'black smearing;' phenomena. This can be avoided by never turning the pixels completely off, but this means OLEDs lose that 'true black' advantage. Secondly, OLEDs have to deal with 'mura': a difference in the light output response per-pixel for the same input voltage. This is fixed by a pixel-by-pixel LUT of actual brightness vs. commanded brightness, calibrated at the factory. The problem here is that either you cap the maximum brightness of every pixel on the panel the the least responsive pixel (to avoid dark pixels on a bright background) with all pixel responses being negative values and use nonlinear pixel response curves in the LUT, or you use both positive and negative pixel offsets in the LUT with simpler linear lookups but accept that some pixels will never enter the 'off' state in dark scenes (And some will go completely dark even in dim-but-not-black scenes). LCDs also have to deal with Mura, but because they are not self-emissive the undershoot penalty does not exist, and the overshoot penalty can be compensated by changes to the entirely independent backlight. The brightness cap has an additional issue for VR specifically, where the move to pancake optics (hybrid polarisation catadioptrics) from basic doublet lenses or hybrid-fresnel lenses – a move that has allowed for smaller panels, more compact and lighter HMDs, larger eyeboxes, reduced chromatic aberration, and greatly reduced glare artefacts ('god rays') all at the same FoV – comes at the cost of optical efficiency. For the same apparent brightness to a viewer, a pancake optic HMD needs more than double the brightness from the panel compared to doublet or hybrid-fresnel optics. Reply
Chokkymalk edzieba said: Utter nonsense. The reason SDE is common for VR displays is because they are spread over a massive field of view, which means pixel density (pixels per degree subtended angle) is extremely low. Since you do not view the display without the optical engine in front of it, the display density of the panel itself, and the physical distance of the panel itself from your eyes, are irrelevant. For example, with a 90° horizontal FoV, a 1920×1080 panel will only have 12 pixels per degree. For example, the Quest 3 has the display panels less than half the distance from your eyes as the Rift DK1. But the SDE is dramatically reduced on the Quest 3 compared to the DK1. What really affects SDE is the fill factor of a display: the ratio of area of emitting pixels – the bits that emit light (for OLEDs, or the non-aperture-masked areas of a CRT, or the translucent areas of an LCD – to the dark areas (the support electronics between pixels in an LCD or OLED, or the aperture mask in a CRT, or the gaps between scan lines in a CRT). The lower the fill factor, the worse the SDE. K Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/virtual-reality/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/virtual-reality/tinkerer-builds-vr-headset-with-crts-repurposed-from-sony-watchman-makeshift-vr-rig-isnt-the-sharpest-but-eliminates-screen-door-effect#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com/subscription
- Valve says it misreported VRAM capacity on some graphics cards in Steam Hardware Surveys — latest data depicting 30% adoption of 8GB GPUs now foggy
- HP says memory costs doubled in one quarter, now account for 35% of PC build materials
- Nvidia posts record $215 billion annual revenue in latest quarterly earnings report — gaming GPUs now only 11.45% of revenue
- Modder pushes rare 20GB RTX 3080 Ti past 550W with risky power shunts and liquid metal cooling — project reveals full performance potential of the unreleased GP
- AI boosted US economy by 'basically zero' in 2025, says Goldman Sachs chief economist — 'We think there's been a lot of misreporting of the impact that AI inves
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.