4 ms·
It certainly took a long time (mid 2010s) for panels in their various guises to truly overtake CRTs for film work. The reason given at my workplace was the cali
by zbuf 5y ago
It certainly took a long time (mid 2010s) for panels in their various guises to truly overtake CRTs for film work. The reason given at my workplace was the calibration control of CRTs took time to be superceded.
The Sony 21" CRTs (and 24" in widscreen) had a very good run -- spanning several decades. They were certainly capable of higher resolutions, but the 1600x1200 was pretty much a standard (or 1920x1200 on the 24" widescreen) for that entire run. I can't think of any other desktop workstation performance 'metric' that was stationary for so long.
- aceazzameen 5y agoI miss my Sony Trinitron that I gave away in 2015. I remember not having an "HD TV" when I first bought a PS3, so I hooked it up to my Trinitron with component cables and it displayed beautifully. The 1080p TV I bought at a later date felt like a downgrade, despite the larger size.
- sbierwagen 5y ago1600x1200 is 1.92mp, while 1920x1080 is 2.07mp. Technically more pixels, but juuust barely. For quite a few years my setup was a 1080p panel next to an aged ColorSync 20" and the difference was mostly the falloff in the corners of the CRT. (And the incredible weight of the CRT, of course. 78 pounds!)
- aceazzameen 4y agoLate to respond, but 1600 x 1200 was the default resolution on my Trinitron. I believe the max preset resolution was 2048 x 1536 @ 75hz. So it was able to display 1920 x 1080 letterboxed just fine. I wish I never gave it away, but I sure don't miss moving it!