4 ms·

CRTs had a shadowmask / specific phosphor placement, right? sure, you could run whatever resolution, but is that not kinda using a mechanical upscaler?

duskwuff 4y ago
Not really. The perforations on the shadowmask (or aperture grille in later displays) were significantly smaller than the electron beam -- a single pixel would always consist of multiple phosphors of each color. There was never any expectation that pixels on the display would line up with the phosphors.
- tonyarkles 4y ago
  Reading your comment and the parent comment sent me on a Wikipedia journey. I cannot believe that it wasn’t until today that I understood that the shadow mask/aperture grille worked by exploiting the different angle that each colour’s electron beam would hit the back of it. That’s wild and answers a question I didn’t even know I had, despite having lived a significant portion of my life with CRT displays.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron#Trinitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron#Trinitron Mitsubishi Diamondtron and FD Trinitron were arguably the pinnacle of CRT development.
- autoexec 4y ago
  A good CRT was arguably the pinnacle of monitors/TV in general. If the function of a monitor is to accurately represent an image then LCD was a total failure. I never seen an LCD screen that could accurately represent even a single color, let alone a whole image full of them. Filling the whole screen with a color like #FF7D00 always results in strong gradients, especially around the corners. Sometimes I think we were all fooled by marketing into thinking that HD resolution was the only thing that mattered just because LCD screens were less expense for companies to make/ship/stock when really we were giving up accurate color representation, faster response times, better viewing angles, zero motion blur, and extremely flexible resolution/refresh rates. I also resent the loss of the degauss button, which was way more fun/satisfying than it had any right to be, but maybe that's just me.
  - nikau 4y ago
    I take it you have never seen an OLED display?
    - hlidotbe 4y ago
      Which is not an LCD so I guess the point still stand
      - nikau 4y ago
        I don't see crt as pinnacle vs oled for any metric other than scaling for very low resolution retro games
  - terribleperson 4y ago
    There's a feeling that I've held for a good while now that the overwhelming success of 'HD' as an advertising term slowed display advancements by like a decade. I don't think CRTs had a future regardless, but almost all display development seemed to halt in favor of producing 720p/1080p displays and bringing down their prices.

duskwuff 4y ago

Not really. The perforations on the shadowmask (or aperture grille in later displays) were significantly smaller than the electron beam -- a single pixel would always consist of multiple phosphors of each color. There was never any expectation that pixels on the display would line up with the phosphors.

tonyarkles 4y ago
Reading your comment and the parent comment sent me on a Wikipedia journey. I cannot believe that it wasn’t until today that I understood that the shadow mask/aperture grille worked by exploiting the different angle that each colour’s electron beam would hit the back of it. That’s wild and answers a question I didn’t even know I had, despite having lived a significant portion of my life with CRT displays.

sacnoradhq 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron#Trinitron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron#Trinitron Mitsubishi Diamondtron and FD Trinitron were arguably the pinnacle of CRT development.

autoexec 4y ago
A good CRT was arguably the pinnacle of monitors/TV in general. If the function of a monitor is to accurately represent an image then LCD was a total failure. I never seen an LCD screen that could accurately represent even a single color, let alone a whole image full of them. Filling the whole screen with a color like #FF7D00 always results in strong gradients, especially around the corners. Sometimes I think we were all fooled by marketing into thinking that HD resolution was the only thing that mattered just because LCD screens were less expense for companies to make/ship/stock when really we were giving up accurate color representation, faster response times, better viewing angles, zero motion blur, and extremely flexible resolution/refresh rates. I also resent the loss of the degauss button, which was way more fun/satisfying than it had any right to be, but maybe that's just me.
- nikau 4y ago
  I take it you have never seen an OLED display?
  - hlidotbe 4y ago
    Which is not an LCD so I guess the point still stand
    - nikau 4y ago
      I don't see crt as pinnacle vs oled for any metric other than scaling for very low resolution retro games
- terribleperson 4y ago
  There's a feeling that I've held for a good while now that the overwhelming success of 'HD' as an advertising term slowed display advancements by like a decade. I don't think CRTs had a future regardless, but almost all display development seemed to halt in favor of producing 720p/1080p displays and bringing down their prices.