Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: