Comment by db48x
2 months ago
If you pay extra for that. Meanwhile _any_ CRT could trade off resolution for refresh rate across a fairly wide range. In fact the standard resolutions for monitors were all just individual points in a larger space of possibilities. They could change aspect ratio as well. This can be quite extreme. Consider the 8088 MPH demo from a few years back (<https://trixter.oldskool.org/2015/04/07/8088-mph-we-break-al...>). See the part near the end with the pictures of 6 of the authors? That video mode only had 100 lines, but scrunched up to make a higher resolution.
Well, we are discussing a CRT TV that was $40k new a life time ago, so perhaps the fact that it costs $599 to get a 480Hz OLED today is not a consideration. To the point though: it is a fallacy to believe that CRTs could arbitrarily shape their resolution. While the input signal could cover a wide range of possible resolutions and refresh rates depending on the bandwidth supported, the existence of apperture grilles or shadow masks imposed a fixed digital reality that limited the maximum possible resolution to much lower values than the typical 4k panels that we have today. The "pixels" didn't become larger on lower resolutions: they just covered more dots on the mask. We can get much better results today with scaling than we ever could on CRTs, as awesome a technology as they were 40 years ago.
Sure, but 99% of that cost was paying for the absurd physical dimensions of that particular television.
> The "pixels" didn't become larger on lower resolutions…
Strictly speaking, the CRT only had discrete lines not pixels. Within a line the color and brightness could change as rapidly or slowly as the signal source desired. It was in fact an analog signal rather than a digital one. This is why pixels in many display modes used by CRTs were rectangular rather than square.
> We can get much better results today with scaling than we ever could on CRTs…
I say it’s the other way around! No ordinary flat–panel display can emulate the rectangular pixels of the most common video modes used on CRTs because they are built with square pixels. You would have to have a display built with just the right size and shape of pixel to do that, and then it wouldn’t be any good for displaying modern video formats.
Seems irrelevant to bring up cost for something that is streamline-priced today, but sure, let's move on.
> Strictly speaking, the CRT only had discrete lines not pixels.
The electron gun moves in an analog fashion, but when it hits the glass surface, it can only go through specific openings [1]. These openings are placed at a specific distance apart [2]. This distance specifies the horizontal, digital, max CRT resolution.
> No ordinary flat–panel display can emulate the rectangular pixels of the most common video modes used on CRTs because they are built with square pixels.
Today's panels have achieved "retina" resolution, which means that the human eye cannot distinguish individual pixels anymore. The rest is just software [3].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13bpgc8ZxTo
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch#/media/File:CRT_mask...
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/dixnso/retroarch...
Any CRT given its driving circuits and deflection mechanisms can take it. But yeah, refresh rates of CRT aren't really tied to price.