These days, kids identify them by the aspect ratio.

  • Hypersapien@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    People always said that Betamax was better quality than VHS. What never gets mentioned is that regular consumer TVs at the time weren’t capable of displaying the difference in quality. To the average person they were the same.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You kinda can tell though. CRTs didn’t really use pixels, so it’s not like watching on today’s video equipment though

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        CRT screens definitely used pixels, but they updated on the horizontal line rather than per pixel. This is why earlier flatscreen LCDs were worse than CRTs in a lot of ways as they had much more motion blur as stuff like “sample and hold” meant that each pixel wasn’t updated every frame if the colour info didn’t change. CRTs gave you a fresh image each frame regardless.

        • Psyduck_world@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have heard that pixels in CRTs are round and LCD/LED are square, that’s the reason why aliasing is not too noticeable on CRTs. Is this true or another internet bs?

          • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re not round persay, but they aren’t as sharp so have more light bleed into one another giving a natural alaising effect. This is why some old games where the art is designed to account for this bluring look wrong when played on pixel perfect modern TVs.