3 ms·
Indeed. As far as I could tell, the article was an exercise in "TMTOWTDI" - sometimes squares, sometimes subdivided squares (trinitron), sometimes little circl
by Roboprog 12y ago
Indeed. As far as I could tell, the article was an exercise in "TMTOWTDI" - sometimes squares, sometimes subdivided squares (trinitron), sometimes little circles with gaps or overlaps, sometimes linear interpolation of a sample.
OK, it's an abstraction, but the article didn't seem to cover the strength of weakness of various implementations.
- Roboprog 12y agoAnd sometimes, it was an asterisk in a 60 x 80 grid (with a messed up aspect ratio) on a piece of printer paper, back in the stone age :-)
- fsloth 12y agoI think there is a slight overload of terminology here. The samples in the source image, and the tiny light sources that vary in intensity and are driven by a voltage after the information in the bits in the source image has traveled through the display pipeline are two different things. The author discusses the best way to think about the source image. It will get really awkward if we want to discuss imaging algorithms and have to define "my pixel is a square... if it's a bunch of weird shapes the transform is this... etc." It's easiest from this point of view to think of the source image as a lattice of point samples and figure out what the sampling function (our physical pixels) do to the image after we have figured out the math on the point sample source.