The resolution problem wasn’t actually so bad, with a near infinite horizontal resolution and more than enough space to evolve (1200p CRTs weren’t that difficult to come by) it really wasn’t a problem.
The screen size wasn’t that different either. Nobody built wide screen TVs of modern sizes, CRT or plasma or LCD didn’t matter. If you wanted modern TV sizes, you had to get a projector, and those were prohibitively expensive. The bezels were just as big as on CRTs if not bigger.
The back bulge taking up unnecessary space and the noise was probably what did them in. Looking back at early flat panels, I do wonder who would possibly buy those things for the image quality. The contrast ratio of some modern TVs (especially the sub 600 dollar ones) still doesn’t beat what CRTs could accomplish.
We could’ve had everything TVs have now, but with a bit of a bulge on the back. We’re getting models that come close in equivalent theoretical image quality now with OLED and QDOLED screens.
80s CRTs were nothing compared to what the early 2000s produced. CRTs were becoming wider, flatter, and had higher resolutions, but smeary blurry flat screen TVs were all the hype because they were super thin.
I like my flat panels, but I do wish CRTs would’ve stuck around for longer. Until 4k TVs came along, the visual information density of these screens was higher than that of flat panels. That’s why so many digitised videos look like complete dogshit on modern TVs, the information encoded in them wasn’t meant to be interpreted as discrete pixels.
Sometimes I think about how some technologies could have evolved if they didn’t get out of fashion. I always thought it’s a bit unfair to compare products made decades ago with new ones and use it as a comparison for the whole technology.
In the case of crts, it would be totally possible to make them with modern aspect ratio and resolutions. The greatest challenges would probably be size, weight and power consumption.
For TVs, that’s just because they didn’t need any more resolution because the signal they were displaying was 480i (or even worse, in the case of things like really old computers/video game consoles).
My circa-2000 19" CRT computer monitor, on the other hand, could do a resolution that’s still higher than what most similarly-sized desktop flat screen monitors can manage (it was either QXGA [2048x1536] or QSXGA [2560x2048], I forget which).
And then, of course, there were specialized CRT displays like oscilloscopes and vector displays that actually drew with the electron beam and therefore had infinite “resolution.”
Point is, the low resolution was not an inherent limitation of CRT technology.
Are you serious?
The resolution problem wasn’t actually so bad, with a near infinite horizontal resolution and more than enough space to evolve (1200p CRTs weren’t that difficult to come by) it really wasn’t a problem.
The screen size wasn’t that different either. Nobody built wide screen TVs of modern sizes, CRT or plasma or LCD didn’t matter. If you wanted modern TV sizes, you had to get a projector, and those were prohibitively expensive. The bezels were just as big as on CRTs if not bigger.
The back bulge taking up unnecessary space and the noise was probably what did them in. Looking back at early flat panels, I do wonder who would possibly buy those things for the image quality. The contrast ratio of some modern TVs (especially the sub 600 dollar ones) still doesn’t beat what CRTs could accomplish.
We could’ve had everything TVs have now, but with a bit of a bulge on the back. We’re getting models that come close in equivalent theoretical image quality now with OLED and QDOLED screens.
80s CRTs were nothing compared to what the early 2000s produced. CRTs were becoming wider, flatter, and had higher resolutions, but smeary blurry flat screen TVs were all the hype because they were super thin.
I like my flat panels, but I do wish CRTs would’ve stuck around for longer. Until 4k TVs came along, the visual information density of these screens was higher than that of flat panels. That’s why so many digitised videos look like complete dogshit on modern TVs, the information encoded in them wasn’t meant to be interpreted as discrete pixels.
Sometimes I think about how some technologies could have evolved if they didn’t get out of fashion. I always thought it’s a bit unfair to compare products made decades ago with new ones and use it as a comparison for the whole technology.
In the case of crts, it would be totally possible to make them with modern aspect ratio and resolutions. The greatest challenges would probably be size, weight and power consumption.
For TVs, that’s just because they didn’t need any more resolution because the signal they were displaying was 480i (or even worse, in the case of things like really old computers/video game consoles).
My circa-2000 19" CRT computer monitor, on the other hand, could do a resolution that’s still higher than what most similarly-sized desktop flat screen monitors can manage (it was either QXGA [2048x1536] or QSXGA [2560x2048], I forget which).
And then, of course, there were specialized CRT displays like oscilloscopes and vector displays that actually drew with the electron beam and therefore had infinite “resolution.”
Point is, the low resolution was not an inherent limitation of CRT technology.