5 ms·

A Full HD CRT from the roadside in 2003? As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? Is this some elaborate joke I'm missing? > I haven't owned a sm

A Full HD CRT from the roadside in 2003? As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? Is this some elaborate joke I'm missing? > I haven't owned a smartphone with a screen resolution that low Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What? Did you own a smartphone at all in the past 10 years? Just double checking. > I think it's an amazing feat of marketing, by display companies, that people still put up with such low resolutions. And how did you reach that conclusion? Did you somehow miss display companies selling and pushing 1440p and 4K monitors left and right for more than a handful of years at this point, and yet the Steam Hardware Survey still bringing out 1080p monitors as the king month to month? Sometimes I really do wonder if I live in a different world to others.

hnuser123456 1y ago
CRT resolution was moreso limited by GPUs than the monitor itself. They don't have fixed pixels like LCD/OLED.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  They still had very real limitations in terms of the signal they accepted, and color CRTs specifically had discrete color patches forming discrete, fixed number of triads.
- nomel 1y ago
  > GPUs than the monitor itself. No, it was limited by the bandwidth of the beam driving system, which the manufactures, obviously, tried to maximize. This limit is what set the shadow mask and RGB sub pixels/strip widths. The electron beam couldn't make different color, different colored phosphor patches were used. But, since bandwidth is mostly resolution * refresh, you could trade between the two: more refresh, less resolution. More resolution, less refresh. Early on, you had to download a "driver" for the monitor, which had a list of the supported resolutions and refresh rates. There was eventually a protocol made to query the supported resolutions, straight from the monitor. But, you could also just make your own list (still can) and do funky resolutions and refresh rates, as long as the drive circuit could accommodate. This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    Yeah, DDC and EDID were standardized in '94, and were widely available and working well by '98 - if you were on Windows at least, running fresh hardware. > This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p. Assuming both modes were meant with 24-bit color ("true color"), that'd mean 17.36 Hz tops then for the FHD mode, ignoring video timing requirements. I don't think you were using that monitor at 17 Hz. Even if you fell back to 16 bit color, that's still at most 26 Hz, which is miserable enough on a modern sample-and-hold style display, let alone on a strobed one from back in the day. And that is to say nothing of the mouse input feel.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - LargoLasskhyfv 1y ago
    I got a 21" Hitachi Superscan Elite or Supreme around that time from a gamer. Because that thing could only do the BIOS text modes, and standard VGA at 640x480 at 60 or 70Hz. Anything else just showed OUT OF SYNC on the OSD, and then switched off. Except when you fed it 800x600@160Hz, 1024x768@144Hz, 1280@120Hz and 1600x1200@70 to 80Hz, or anything weird in between. I could easily do that under XFree86 or early X.ORG. A gamer under DOS/Windows rather not, not even with Scitech Display Doctor, because most games at that time used the hardware directly, with only a few standard options to chose from. OUT-OF-SYNC zing Was nice for viewing 2 DIN-A4 side by side in original size :-) Fortunately a Matrox I had could drive that, as could a later Voodoo3 which also had excellent RAMDACs and X support.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      That sounds weird and fun, although I can't seem to find the pattern that would have resulted in those numbers. 1024×768@144 (8bpc) works out to 340 MB/s, while 800×600@160 (8bpc) works out to just 230 MB/s, should have been able to refresh even faster. Or is that some other limitation that's not bandwidth? [0] Was a bit surprised by that double A4 thing btw, but I did the math and it checks out - paper is just surprisingly small compared to desktop displays. Both size and resolution wise (1612×1209 would have put you right up to 96 ppi, with regular 1600×1200 being pretty close too). It's kind of ironic even, the typical 1080p 24" 60 Hz LCD spec that's been with us for decades since just barely fits an A4 height wise, and has a slightly lower ppi. Does have some extra space for sidebars at least, I guess. [0] Update: ah right, it wasn't a pixel clock limit being ran to the limit there, but the horizontal frequency.
nomel 1y ago
> As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? No, literally, on the roadside, out for trash. Disposing of CRT has always been expensive since they can't fit in the trash and taking them to the dump has a fee for the all the lead. At the transition to LCD, they were all over the place, along with projection TVs. There was also a lot of churn when "slimmer" versions came out, that mostly halved the depth required. Again, it was literally 50lbs, and about 2ft in depth. It took up my whole desk. It was worthless to most anyone. > Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What? Over 10 years ago I had an iPhone 6 plus, with 1080p resolution. All my phones after have been higher. Their pixel densities (DPI) are actually pretty great, but since they're small, their pixel counts are on the lower side. There's nothing different about smartphone displays. The display manufacturers use the same process for all of them, with the same densities.
kalleboo 1y ago
I think the italics are because it's so weird that most people have more pixels on the 6" display in their pocket than on the 24" display on their desk.

hnuser123456 1y ago

CRT resolution was moreso limited by GPUs than the monitor itself. They don't have fixed pixels like LCD/OLED.

perching_aix 1y ago
They still had very real limitations in terms of the signal they accepted, and color CRTs specifically had discrete color patches forming discrete, fixed number of triads.
nomel 1y ago
> GPUs than the monitor itself. No, it was limited by the bandwidth of the beam driving system, which the manufactures, obviously, tried to maximize. This limit is what set the shadow mask and RGB sub pixels/strip widths. The electron beam couldn't make different color, different colored phosphor patches were used. But, since bandwidth is mostly resolution * refresh, you could trade between the two: more refresh, less resolution. More resolution, less refresh. Early on, you had to download a "driver" for the monitor, which had a list of the supported resolutions and refresh rates. There was eventually a protocol made to query the supported resolutions, straight from the monitor. But, you could also just make your own list (still can) and do funky resolutions and refresh rates, as long as the drive circuit could accommodate. This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  Yeah, DDC and EDID were standardized in '94, and were widely available and working well by '98 - if you were on Windows at least, running fresh hardware. > This monitor could do something like 75Hz at 800x600, and I think < 60 at 1080p. Assuming both modes were meant with 24-bit color ("true color"), that'd mean 17.36 Hz tops then for the FHD mode, ignoring video timing requirements. I don't think you were using that monitor at 17 Hz. Even if you fell back to 16 bit color, that's still at most 26 Hz, which is miserable enough on a modern sample-and-hold style display, let alone on a strobed one from back in the day. And that is to say nothing of the mouse input feel.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- LargoLasskhyfv 1y ago
  I got a 21" Hitachi Superscan Elite or Supreme around that time from a gamer. Because that thing could only do the BIOS text modes, and standard VGA at 640x480 at 60 or 70Hz. Anything else just showed OUT OF SYNC on the OSD, and then switched off. Except when you fed it 800x600@160Hz, 1024x768@144Hz, 1280@120Hz and 1600x1200@70 to 80Hz, or anything weird in between. I could easily do that under XFree86 or early X.ORG. A gamer under DOS/Windows rather not, not even with Scitech Display Doctor, because most games at that time used the hardware directly, with only a few standard options to chose from. OUT-OF-SYNC zing Was nice for viewing 2 DIN-A4 side by side in original size :-) Fortunately a Matrox I had could drive that, as could a later Voodoo3 which also had excellent RAMDACs and X support.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    That sounds weird and fun, although I can't seem to find the pattern that would have resulted in those numbers. 1024×768@144 (8bpc) works out to 340 MB/s, while 800×600@160 (8bpc) works out to just 230 MB/s, should have been able to refresh even faster. Or is that some other limitation that's not bandwidth? [0] Was a bit surprised by that double A4 thing btw, but I did the math and it checks out - paper is just surprisingly small compared to desktop displays. Both size and resolution wise (1612×1209 would have put you right up to 96 ppi, with regular 1600×1200 being pretty close too). It's kind of ironic even, the typical 1080p 24" 60 Hz LCD spec that's been with us for decades since just barely fits an A4 height wise, and has a slightly lower ppi. Does have some extra space for sidebars at least, I guess. [0] Update: ah right, it wasn't a pixel clock limit being ran to the limit there, but the horizontal frequency.

nomel 1y ago

> As if this was just a thing people had happen to them? No, literally, on the roadside, out for trash. Disposing of CRT has always been expensive since they can't fit in the trash and taking them to the dump has a fee for the all the lead. At the transition to LCD, they were all over the place, along with projection TVs. There was also a lot of churn when "slimmer" versions came out, that mostly halved the depth required. Again, it was literally 50lbs, and about 2ft in depth. It took up my whole desk. It was worthless to most anyone. > Smartphone in italics, because smartphones are known for their low pixel densities, right? What? Over 10 years ago I had an iPhone 6 plus, with 1080p resolution. All my phones after have been higher. Their pixel densities (DPI) are actually pretty great, but since they're small, their pixel counts are on the lower side. There's nothing different about smartphone displays. The display manufacturers use the same process for all of them, with the same densities.

kalleboo 1y ago

I think the italics are because it's so weird that most people have more pixels on the 6" display in their pocket than on the 24" display on their desk.