But also, don’t, they are expensive and novelty.

  • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It feels weird reading this as someone who grew up with CRT screens, and remembers how bad they were not just in terms of displaying content, but also for the eyes.

    I think I’m okay leaving this part of the nostalgia in the past. 🤣

  • PrimaCora@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    A CRT with acceptable resolution would break my desk in half. And being that close to one… Not to mention the extremely high pitched sound they make during operation, painful.

    • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Resolition ≠ size, and humans can only hear the high pitched whine with standard definition content (240p, 480i, and PAL equivilents). The higher the resolution, the higher pitched the whine, and humans can’t hear above 20kHz (which is less than 480p @ 60Hz)

      Resolution is dictated by the size of the holes in the shadow mask and also by the windings of the yoke. You could theoretically have a 4k-capable CRT that’s 13" if the manufacturing tech was good enough.

      My 19" Compaq S920 can do 4k interlaced at 60Hz.

      CRTs also don’t have fixed pixels, so they look great at every resolution.

      I think you’re more used to SD CRT TVs rather than VGA CRT computer monitors.

    • Fubarberry@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From watching Digital Foundry’s video, they say that due to a difference in how the display works a much lower resolution CRT is comparable or better in picture quality to a higher resolution LCD.

      They specifically talked about being able to get a lot better performance out of games without any noticable decrease in picture quality by dropping resolution.

      So acceptable resolution may be a lot lower than you think.