/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.9995820]

.

[Anonymous No.9995825]

>>9995820
thank u

[Anonymous No.9995831]

>>9995820
reminder that this applies to LCDs as well

[Anonymous No.9995835]

>>9995820
Based Technology Connections poster

[Anonymous No.9995839]

>>9995831

thats why LCD give a better image with retro games than LED/OLED TVs does
the only problem is that the scaling is wonky and the refresh rate is always lower than 100Hz

[Anonymous No.9995868]

>>9995820
Liar! The filename says "pixels" right there!

[Anonymous No.9995926]

>>9995820
i believe the proper terminology is Goopy Guesstimating Analog Approximation RG-Blobs

[Anonymous No.9995927]

>>9995820
Point to the place on the doll where the pixels touched you

[Anonymous No.9996169]

>>9995927
My hitbox area...

[Anonymous No.9996170]

>>9995820
ok

[Anonymous No.9996175]

>>9995820
That's a phosphor grid.

[Anonymous No.9997884]

Pixel is short for picture element. LCDs, OLEDs, CRTs, their respective displays are all made of pixels. This is why your thread is silent, this is why you have no friends

[Anonymous No.9998081]

>>9995839
LCD and LED TV's are the same thing with a different backlight
>>9995831
what are you talking about, all LCD's have a fixed pixel display
Phosphors aren't pixels because it's light shining through holes
>>9997884
CRT's do not display pixels

[Anonymous No.9998089]

>>9995820
LIAR

[Anonymous No.9998095]

>>9998089
they are pixels when displayed on your screen

[Anonymous No.9998129]

>>9995820
1280x720 what?

[Anonymous No.9998141]

A good way to think about it is a CRT projector, which doesn't use phosphors because it has three monochrome CRTs. There's nothing there to even mistake for a pixel. The phosphor groups of a typical color CRT is the same concept just with the color separation built into a single tube.

[Anonymous No.9998145]

>>9998141
Correction: It doesn't use phosphor groupings. The entire face of each CRT is coated with a phosphor layer but there's no shadowmask.

[Anonymous No.9998175]

>>9995926
RG-blobs is a bit colloquial. Everyone in the industry uses Reticulated Glowing Blivets.

[Anonymous No.9998198]

>>9995839
Are retards with more nostalgia than brains going to start saying LCDs are superior to OLEDs now? Same with the CRT retards.

[Anonymous No.9998209]

>>9998198
You can make an argument for CRT. LCD meanwhile was the worst display tech that won out just because it was the cheapest to make.

[Anonymous No.9998214]

Here's an example of why they're not pixels.
See how Kirby's eyes don't have to align with the phosphors? The beam can aim anywhere, analog style. Even if there's still digital pixels that are making up the graphics

[Anonymous No.9998228]

>>9998214
All I see is pixels made of subpixels and I don't care how they're generated.

[Anonymous No.9998230]

>>9998141
Please explain how you think a monochrome CRT displays a picture without using elements of the picture.

[Anonymous No.9998246]

>>9998230
Because that's how a black and white (or any shade of monochrome) CRT works. The face of the tube is just a solid layer of a phosphor coating with no separation. If you want a color image you can do like the projector does and combine three separate monochrome tubes (a red, a green, and a blue) into a single image, or you can do it like most color TVs and do the color separation inside the tube with a shadowmask and a bunch of RGB phosphor dots (or stripes for trinitrons).

[Anonymous No.9998249]

It might help if OP actually posted the video...

https://youtu.be/Ea6tw-gulnQ

[Anonymous No.9998261]

every single piece of display technology is, from a signal processing perspective, a type of signal filter.

[Anonymous No.9998384]

>>9998230
because it outputs a light into a dot
you wouldn't call a camera obscura image a pixel now would you

[Anonymous No.9998405]

>>9998209
And it took exponentially less space, and was much, much more energy efficient. It wasn't just the cheapness factor.

[Anonymous No.9998429]

>>9998405
the only thing that's true is it takes less space and it's not heavy
old LCD's were that power efficient

[Anonymous No.9998448]

>>9998405
Yeah, lCD is the superior tech, natural evolution of displays.
People clinging to CRTs are just mentally challenged

[Anonymous No.9998535]

>>9998246
>>9998384
Light is a picture element. Yeah I couldn't believe it either.

[Anonymous No.9998624]

>>9998535
I don't believe you know what picture element means if you think that's what light is

[Anonymous No.9998682]

>>9996175
This. And grid related is a "liquid crystal grid". I can tell from some of the grid elements and from having seen quote a few copes in my time

>>9997884
>CRTs, their respective displays are all made of pixels.
Nope. I have CRTs with no grille/mask/whatever and hence no pixels. What you "actually meant" is correct, but you screwed the pooch by using inaccurate generalization.

>>9998141
>CRT projector, which doesn't use phosphors because it has three monochrome CRTs.
Yes they do
>There's nothing there to even mistake for a pixel.
And yet you just mistook phosphors for pixels. Oh the ironing.

[Anonymous No.9999147]

>>9998682
Monochrome crts have a solid phosphor layer, not phosphor dots. That's the distinction being made there.

[Anonymous No.9999845]

>>9999147
>cope
kek

[Anonymous No.10000104]

>>9999845
What part of that is untrue? Does your retard ass know how a black and white TV works?

[Anonymous No.10000159]

>>10000104
The point is no one gives a shit

[Anonymous No.10000330]

>>9998624
Light reflect off objects around you and into your eyes allowing you to see things like pictures and elements of them. Science.
>>9998682
>inaccurate generalization
Generalizing is the point. Picture element means different things with different contexts and all display technologies use elements of a picture to generate them. For example:
>>10000104
The horizontal lines drawn by the electron gun on a monochrome CRT can be described as elements of a picture thus pixels, bars of light with varying intensity across the line to create an image when stacked. Subpixels allowed for arbitrarily defined sections of color along each horizontal line. For retro games we refer to "pixels" as what a computer generates, which is intrinsically different from the picture element drawn by an electron gun and yet are both described as pixels as they're both describing picture elements either in analog space or digital space. Are you tired of reading this yet? I can keep going.

[Anonymous No.10000338]

>>10000330
>The horizontal lines drawn by the electron gun on a monochrome CRT can be described as elements of a picture thus pixels
>The entire line is the pixel

[Anonymous No.10000358]

[Anonymous No.10000412]

>>9995820
I am going to argue that they are pixels. They are discreet samples of the analog image. The caveat being they have no relationship to the pixels that the analog image was created from.

[Anonymous No.10000437]

>>10000330
I see, so basically you’ve given the word pixel your own meaning and interpreted how light functions completely wrong
Amazing

[Anonymous No.10000470]

>>10000437
A monochrome CRT has 1 pixel that changes intensity and position very fast a fixed number of times horizontally and vertically. Captured with a sufficiently high speed camera you could see those individual points as a grid and call each point along that grid a pixel.

[Anonymous No.10000503]

>>10000470
>A monochrome CRT has 1 pixel that changes intensity and position
If it has different values at different positions at the same time then it is not a pixel.

>fixed number of times horizontally and vertically. Captured with a sufficiently high speed camera you could see those individual points as a grid and call each point along that grid a pixel.
But it's not fixed by any part of the CRT. Any individual points seen are not the result of the the display, but come from the digital information used to create the analog signal the CRT is displaying.

[Anonymous No.10000510]

>>10000470
You’ve fundamentally changed the meaning of the words
Those are raster scans
The only argument you can make is the image is designed with pixels, the display is not

[Anonymous No.10000539]

>>10000503
>If it has different values at different positions at the same time then it is not a pixel.
It has different values at different positions in extremely rapid succession, never actually at the same time.

>But it's not fixed by any part of the CRT.
It's fixed by the physical dimensions of the television set. There is a limited amount of horizontal and vertical space in which a limited and countable number of non-overlapping electron beams can be fired along each axis.

[Anonymous No.10000557]

>>10000437
The meaning wasn't changed, it's abiding by the language of the definition.
>interpreted how light functions completely wrong
Light doesn't reflect into your eyes? How do you see?
>>10000503
If it has different values at different positions at the same time then it's at two places at once, which isn't what was described
>Any individual points seen are a result of the CRT displaying the analog signal created from the digital information
They both work with pixels

[Anonymous No.10000595]

what a stupid fucking thread full of stupid fucking people.

[Anonymous No.10000617]

>>10000595
And yet you posted in it. At least you know your place.

[Anonymous No.10000631]

>>10000412
Except that the image isn't bound to any specific phosphor group. The electron beam will constantly be lighting up parts of a phosphor dot while the rest of it is dark. If a phosphor is a pixel then it's also an infinitely divisible one, which doesn't apply to pixels in every other context.

[Anonymous No.10000643]

>>10000470
No you can't because the line is not discreetly separated as the beam scans horizontally. You can't subdivide it in steps to determine where one "pixel" begins and another ends. Remember that the beam is drawing a continuous line regardless of the shadowmask. You're not seeing some of the light because it's being blocked by the mask's physical structure but it's a continuous scan. If I shine a flashlight and trace a line across the wall, how many pixels did I draw?

[Anonymous No.10000674]

>>10000539
>There is a limited amount of horizontal and vertical space in which a limited and countable number of non-overlapping electron beams
The spot size will change depending on the intensity of the beam. As this happens while scanning a line in a continuous motion it becomes impossible to accurately measure what you're suggesting. Even if you could figure out the exact borders (which is a crazy thing to do since, again, it's glowing light so there's an ever diminishing gradient) you're going to get different results depending on what exactly is being displayed. Theoretically a brighter object being displayed will have a "lower" resolution than a dimmer one simply because there will be fewer discreet "spots" along the face of the tube. But that means the CRT will have an infinitely variable horizontal resolution. Which it exactly the case but if you ALSO want to insist on there being pixels along that face then a CRT has an infinitely variable number of pixels or an infinitely variable pixel size within a range, but both are a silly way to phrase it because it rejects the basic definition of what a pixel is.

[Anonymous No.10000720]

>>10000674
He seems to think a pixel is every instance of visible light
His argument could be interpreted to what you see in the real world are pixels
I have a feeling he’s just trolling devils advocate

[Anonymous No.10000728]

i don't mean to sound like a faggot but these pictures hurt my eyes

[Anonymous No.10000745]

>>10000539
>It has different values at different positions in extremely rapid succession, never actually at the same time.
If part of the screen is dark while another part of it is light then it has multiple brightness values at the same time. It is not a pixel.

[Anonymous No.10000753]

>>10000631
>The electron beam will constantly be lighting up parts of a phosphor dot while the rest of it is dark
I understand that on principle but does that happen in any meaningful way? Every time I see a close up of a CRT it looks like each dot has a single, even brightness

[Anonymous No.10000757]

>>10000631
The lit parts are the pixels, as is the case with all screens.
>If a phosphor is a pixel then it's also an infinitely divisible one
Subpixels
>>10000643
>You can't subdivide it in steps to determine where one "pixel" begins and another ends.
Subpixels
>If I shine a flashlight and trace a line across the wall, how many pixels did I draw?
One
>>10000674
The electron beam doesn't physically change size, the resolution is determined by the scan not the glow

[Anonymous No.10000759]

>>10000728
You might need glasses anon

[Anonymous No.10000768]

>>10000759
but i'm not gay anon

[Anonymous No.10000776]

>>10000757
>subpixels
Lmao, please stop talking

[Anonymous No.10000778]

>>10000757
>Subpixels
>Subpixels
>One
This is all so wrong.

[Anonymous No.10000780]

>>10000768
If highly cluttered images are hurting your eyes, I’m sorry anon but it’s time for an eye test

[Anonymous No.10000796]

>>10000778
I told you he thinks all visible light is a pixel
He’s a troll

[Anonymous No.10000802]

>>10000745
The SCREEN has multiple brightness values but the electron beam is not simultaneously striking all those places. The beam is the pixel.

[Anonymous No.10000862]

>>10000776
>>10000778
https://youtu.be/Ea6tw-gulnQ?t=234
Lol
>>10000796
Completely wrong characterization of the argument. It's not "all visible light", it's the specific rays of light that make it to the photo sensors in your eyes, the rods and cones, that comprise the elements to the picture your eyes see.

[Anonymous No.10000970]

>>10000802

[Anonymous No.10000978]

>>10000862
>Completely wrong characterization of the argument
Irrelevant, if you argue your point then you must abide by the rule universally
The sun also blasts rays of light to make it to the photo sensors in your eyes

[Anonymous No.10000987]

>>10000358
What the fuck

[Anonymous No.10000989]

>>9995835
Posting random YouTube thumbnails to start threads is disgusting but at least he has good taste.

[Anonymous No.10001041]

>>10000978
Okay, and every single ray of light emitted from the sun isn't being solely directed inside your eyeballs. Thanks for demonstrating your miscomprehension yet again

[Anonymous No.10001050]

>>10000970
The electron gun is to the paintbrush as the electron beam is to the paint

[Anonymous No.10001093]

>>9998429
>old LCD's were that power efficient
I assume you meant "weren't" and you're still wrong. Even if they were worse than what we have today, they ran circles around CRTs and even plasma.

[Anonymous No.10001098]

>>10000757
Tell me what you think a subpixel is. And don't you dare say a small pixel.

[Anonymous No.10001101]

>>10001098
It's a subdivision of a pixel.

[Anonymous No.10001105]

>>10001041
All light that you observe is being directed at your eyeballs mate

[Anonymous No.10001106]

>>10001098
Because I consider an entire line to be a pixel, subpixels are any arbitrary section of that line/pixel.
>>10001101 not me but same idea

[Anonymous No.10001109]

>>10001105
>All light that you observe is being directed at your eyeballs mate
Whoa...

[Anonymous No.10001113]

>>10001093
I did mean weren’t
And LCD is about 2/3 the wattage where as plasma are double LCDs and higher wattage than a CRT
Do not confuse voltage and wattage

[Anonymous No.10001114]

>>9995820
thank you, obese homosexual youtube man. what would we do without you patronizing the entire internet and talking to people in your videos like they have down syndrome? youtube would cease to exist without your TC. nah, i'm kidding, nobody gives a fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.10001117]

>>10001105
>All light you observe
The light you observe is not comprised of every ray in existence, you'd go blind instantly buddy

[Anonymous No.10001124]

>>10000720
Even trying to steelman the argument doesn't work because the phosphor glow means the boundaries of each instance is arbitrary. Sure, the beam itself is wicked bright but everything that it just scanned is also illuminated for a time. The phosphor decay isn't instantaneous. It'd be a fool's errand to try to isolate the exact borders of a "pixel" if we're using the electron beam's target as the definition. The phosphors that were just scanned an attosecond prior would still be just as illuminated even though they aren't being hit by the electron beam at that exact moment.

https://youtu.be/3BJU2drrtCM

[Anonymous No.10001131]

>>10001124
And you’d have to redefine the word pixel
You can say the rasters are projecting an image comprised of pixels
But you can’t say that the CRT produces pixels

[Anonymous No.10001134]

>>10001106
If you follow that logic then you can just keep going down into the atoms of the material. Is a silicon atom a pixel?

[Anonymous No.10001142]

>>10001134
If they're being used as elements in a picture then fuck yeah they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0

[Anonymous No.10001145]

>>10000753
You can see it happening in the Technology Connections video that OP took his image from. In normal viewing this is irrelevant. We're talking even beyond nose to glass levels of magnification. The phosphor dots are tiny, after all. But you can see that the image isn't bound to them to any degree.

[Anonymous No.10001150]

>>10001145
Well then it stands to reason that the pixel dimensions are defined by the electron gun's raster scan rather than how that scan lands on the shadowmask and phosphor dots.

[Anonymous No.10001156]

>>10001131
How can a raster scan project an image comprised of pixels without producing pixels?

[Anonymous No.10001161]

>>10000802
The "beam" isn't what you're seeing. The glow of the phosphors that are agitated by the beam is. By saying the beam is the pixel but not the glow then you're saying that CRT pixels are invisible to the eye.

[Anonymous No.10001167]

>>10001156
easy

[Anonymous No.10001173]

>>10001161
The beam is what the CRT expresses pixels with and is what the computer "sees". The phosphor dots are short-term memory intended to be physically seen and rewritten, but cannot be physically seen or rewritten without the electron beam.

[Anonymous No.10001175]

>>10001117
If a light shines up your vagina but nobody is there to see it, does it make a pixel?

[Anonymous No.10001180]

>>10001167
That seems to be producing picture elements regardless of the fact it isn't raster scanning. I assume you could only understand
>project an image
And felt really smart while googling children's toys

[Anonymous No.10001182]

Ceci n'est pas une pixel.

[Anonymous No.10001183]

>>10001175
Are you coming on to me? Fag

[Anonymous No.10001184]

>>10001182
>"The Treachery of Pixels"

[Anonymous No.10001185]

>>10001180
Seeing as your argument is simplistic in nature, I decided to show you a simple picture that has no pixels
that projected image contains no pixels however the image inserted into the light does
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[Anonymous No.10001192]

>>10001156
The CRT is analog. Whether or not it displays a digital source is irrelevant to what it itself is. If a CRT has pixels when it's displaying the NES does it suddenly not have pixels when it's playing a VHS tape?

[Anonymous No.10001197]

>>10001173
What computer? There's no computer involved here. Or rather there doesn't have to be. The CRT was invented in the proverbial stone age.

[Anonymous No.10001202]

>>10000104
>What part of that is strawman cope?
All of it
>>10000330
>Coping is the point.
No. It's just your embarassing cope.

[Anonymous No.10001203]

>>10001173
This entire thread.

[Anonymous No.10001208]

>>10001185
The projection uses picture elements, otherwise there wouldn't be a picture.
>>10001192
VHS tapes have signals to draw pixels too, I don't get your point. Do you think pixels are exclusively digital?

[Anonymous No.10001213]

>>10001197
Computer refers to electronic hardware that processes information.
>>10001202
Non argument, talking to two people, discarded
>>10001203
DUDE WEED LOL

[Anonymous No.10001215]

>>10001145
Good enough for me. I rescind my proposal.

[Anonymous No.10001250]

>>10001208
So your argument is a pixel is just all picture elements regardless?
Got it, opinion discarded
You’ve just redefined the word, nothing more

[Anonymous No.10001256]

>>10001250
Picture = pix
Element = el
Pix + el = pixel
No redefinition, you just didn't know the etymology or nuance which is expected

[Anonymous No.10001260]

>>10001208
>VHS tapes have signals to draw pixels too
No they do not. The video signal is completely analog.

>Do you think pixels are exclusively digital?
Yes. By definition.

[Anonymous No.10001267]

>>10001256
>etymology
If we based all words solely on it’s etymology then we would have a much smaller vocabulary
Please learn definitions before etymologies thanks

[Anonymous No.10001285]

>>10001260
>VHS tapes don't have signals to draw pictures because the video signal is analog
>Pixels are digital because that's how I understand them
Sure
>>10001267
>solely
Etymology includes the evolution of words, meaning their broadened usage. Again the nuance of the issue is lost on you

[Anonymous No.10001295]

>>10001285
There is no nuance lost, you are just wrong about this because you are basing distinction on base words

[Anonymous No.10001317]

>>10001285
>>VHS tapes don't have signals to draw pictures because the video signal is analog
>>Pixels are digital because that's how I understand them
What do you think digital and analog mean?

[Anonymous No.10001323]

>>10001295
The distinction is based on context, not the word. Nuance.
>>10001317
Abstractions of physical or electronic data.

[Anonymous No.10001341]

>>10001323
>Abstractions of physical or electronic data.
Alright. So you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10001346]

>>10001341
Tell me what you thought I said and we'll see about that.

[Anonymous No.10001354]

>>10001323
>the distinction is based on context
Please, just stop fucking talking

[Anonymous No.10001360]

>>10001354
But then our vocabulary would be so much smaller. What a shame.

[Anonymous No.10001362]

>>9997884
A picture element is a point sample.

[Anonymous No.10001369]

>>10001362
That's a really good way of describing it.

[Anonymous No.10001370]

>>10001369
It's the definition.

[Anonymous No.10001372]

>>10001370
Where? I want a citation for posterity.

[Anonymous No.10001375]

>>9998214
it just makes more detail where there actually isn't any

[Anonymous No.10001376]

>>10001375
Gary stop posting subjectively

[Anonymous No.10001382]

>>10001372
Read a textbook on digital image processing. Any will do.

[Anonymous No.10001383]

>>10001376
what about phosphors, man, i use S-Video instead of component because it's the correct amount of shitty

[Anonymous No.10001386]

>>10001382
You may also be interested in this as well: http://alvyray.com/Memos/CG/Microsoft/6_pixel.pdf

[Anonymous No.10001504]

>>9998081
>LCD and LED TV's are the same thing with a different backlight
More like all LCDs have LED Backlight for more than a decade now
True LED TVs aren't on the market yet apart from exepnsive 5 to 6 figure MicroLED ones

[Anonymous No.10001509]

>>9998081
>CRT's do not display pixels
Every raster display displays pixels you numbskull

[Anonymous No.10001531]

>>9998682
>Nope. I have CRTs with no grille/mask/whatever and hence no pixels
Every Raster CRT has pixels
Pixels are an abstract

[Anonymous No.10001535]

>>9995835
that faggot is on the verge of trooning out
mark my words

[Anonymous No.10001539]

>>10000470
Only if that CRT is a Vector one, not a Raster one
Otherwise the logic is the same as LCD or Plasma or OLED which all scan from left to right

[Anonymous No.10001550]

>>10000720
>He seems to think a pixel is every instance of visible light
That's literally how it is you stupid CRT neckbeard
Only traditional film projectors show the whole image at once

[Anonymous No.10001558]

>>10001250
You should shut the fuck up you retarded neckbeard hipster and pick up a book.

[Anonymous No.10001560]

>>10001260
Wrong you disgusting neckbeard
VHS and Laserdisc and Beta all draw lines which all have a certain amount of dots
The terminology changed but it's all the same shit

[Anonymous No.10001591]

>>10001504
>True LED TVs aren't on the market yet
OLED's?

[Anonymous No.10001593]

>>10001509
>>10001531
>>10001535
>>10001539
>>10001550
>>10001558
>>10001560
>Samefagging this hard and being wrong with every single post
impressive

[Anonymous No.10002103]

>>10001213
>Non argument, talking to two people, discarded
I accept your concession. Thanks for playing reddit
>>10001531
>Every coper has cope
Indeed

[Anonymous No.10002118]

>>10001539
A vector CRT and raster CRT are the same thing. The yokes are different but you can make one into the other.

[Anonymous No.10002120]

>>10001560
Ok, how many dots are in a line then?

[Anonymous No.10002151]

>>10002118
youtube lied to you

[Anonymous No.10002175]

>>10002103
"Cope" isn't an argument, it was your concession. Failure

[Anonymous No.10002181]

>>10001593
>Everyone that disagrees with me is one person
>When I'm proven wrong I'll cry inspect element, negating my own accusation
Too often

[Anonymous No.10002201]

>>10002181
Nope, the posts replied to were definitely all one person

[Anonymous No.10002301]

>>10002201
Porcelain

[Anonymous No.10002334]

>>10002151
https://www.thedefenderproject.com/other-arcade-games/building-a-vector-monitor-from-a-raster-tv/

[Anonymous No.10002369]

The arguments of the idiot ITT sperging out claiming crts don't have pixels is tantamount to claiming
>LCDs don't acshully have pixels because they have a solid backlight shining through, there just happens to be liquid crystal under varying states of electric excitation blocking light!

[Anonymous No.10002373]

>>10002369
That's literally the opposite of what's happening in this thread. What are you reading?

[Anonymous No.10002830]

For all the idiots shitting on LCDs, they actually look better than LED/OLED TVs when using low resolution inputs, like composite-Svideo-component, because the LED display will interpolate the details of the image to fill the missing pixels, and most of the time it will do it wrong. You will only notice a better image when the LED/OLED is using HDMI because the interpolation is much less agressive, and the lower resolution in the LCD display will be noticeable.
TL;DR if you arent using a RGB mod, a quality signal converter or your TV doesnt support up to 120Hz, a LCD is totally fine.

[Anonymous No.10002874]

>>10002830
I just use a CRT with the original inputs so I can get those premium fuzzy pixels as the developers intended.

[Anonymous No.10002887]

>>10002830
LED tvs are LCDs mate
OLEDs are the only different displays there
And your opinion makes zero sense, interpolation has nothing to do with the display type, it’s to do with the processing of that particular TV
>>10002369
Those are literally fixed pixels anon, the image will show exactly the same regardless of the tv used if it’s the same resolution
a CRT has nothing like that, it shows whatever it can through lit up phosphors like pic in this post >>10001145

[Anonymous No.10003139]

>>10002175
>n-n-no u
>>10002334
>i have no idea what I'm talking about here's a link to something I think might save me
Nope. You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.10003174]

>>10003139
You know you can't just call people retarded when you've been proven wrong, right?

[Anonymous No.10003216]

>>10002887

>LED tvs are LCDs mate
LCDs are closer to CRT technology than to the LED technology

[Anonymous No.10003220]

>>10003216
This is extremely misinformed
I hope you do some more research before you post
LED tv’s are just LCD’s backlit by an LED panel
OLED’s are self emissive and MicroLED’s will be the next iteration of OLED panels

[Anonymous No.10003239]

>>10003220

>LED tv’s are just LCD’s backlit by an LED panel
but thats not correct, because each pixel on a LED display produces his own image and manages his own backlit. Meanwhile on LCDs, the image is formed as a whole on the display panel, and the backlit is always on, on every pixel. Thats also why LCDs have so much trouble displaying black backgrounds, because they cant turn off the backlit.

[Anonymous No.10003251]

>>10001383
>the correct amount of shitty
if you're going to be autistic about it, then that would be composite.

[Anonymous No.10003254]

>>10003239
>each pixel on a LED display produces his own image and manages his own backlit
No, that's specific to OLED and microLED. What's advertised as just an LED TV is an LCD panel with an LED backlight instead of a CCFL backlight.

[Anonymous No.10003259]

>>10003139
It's okay, nobody will force you to understand anything. You win one internet.

[Anonymous No.10003265]

[Anonymous No.10003558]

I suppose "in theory" you could argue that there is a horizontal resolution due to TVL. Even if there aren't any pixels there is a maximum amount of information that a CRT can resolve across a single scanline. TVL typically measures the number of alternating black and white stripes you can count across the face of the tube (or part of it anyway, it's a bit weird). The raw number of phosphor groups will make a difference thjere because you need a full set of RGB phosphors to light up in order to display a white line in between black ones. It's not exactly the same as pixels but it would serve a similar function in terms of calculating resolution.

[Anonymous No.10003580]

>erm technically they're not pixels

OK. Anything else?

[Anonymous No.10003583]

>>10003580

if you can use svideo, then component is pointless for anything up to gen 5

[Anonymous No.10003584]

>>10003583
OK, and?

[Anonymous No.10003837]

For me, it's pixel perfect resolution.
Unless it has some weird apsect ratio, then i just put some bilinear filter over it.

[Anonymous No.10004265]

>>10003174
>>10003259
>y-y-you know
>i-i-it's ok
Just embarrassing. Educate yourself kiddos.

[Anonymous No.10004567]

>>10004265
What is it with trolls on /vr/ responding to proven evidence with empty chest thumping like "educate yourselves" despite that half this thread is literally people trying to educate them while they plug their ears and hum.