Until the 2000s vacuum tubes practically ruled the roost. Even if they had surrendered practically fully to semiconductor technology like integrated circuits, there was no escaping them in everythi…
Now-now. With CRTs resolution is not an inherent trait anyway. You could trade off update frequency for better resolution and back.
They’re heavy, waste tons of space, guzzle power,
When CRTs were common, LCD displays also were heavy, wasted tons of space and guzzled power. And for some time after that they were crap for your eyes.
Even the best CRT ever made is absolutely destroyed by the worst of modern LCDs.
No, the best CRT ever made is really not that, but also costs like an airplane’s wing.
Well, that and the resolution was so garbage they had a natural form of antialiasing, but that’s a really optimistic way of saying they were blurry as shit.
An LCD display has resolution as its trait. A CRT display has a range of resolutions realistically usable with it. It doesn’t have a matrix of pixels, only a surface at which particles are shot.
So, the point before I forget it. While CRTs as they existed are a thing of the past, it would be cool to have some sort of optical displays based on interference (suppose, two lasers at the sides of the screen) or whatever, allowing similarly agile resolution change, and also more energy-efficient than LCDs, and also better for one’s eyes. I think there even are some, just very expensive. Removing the “one bad pixel” component would do wonders. Also this could probably be a better technology for foldable displays. As in - now you scratch a screen, you have to replace the matrix. While such a component wouldn’t cost as much a whole matrix, the lasers would be the expensive part.
it would be cool to have some sort of optical displays based on interference (suppose, two lasers at the sides of the screen) or whatever, allowing similarly agile resolution change, and also more energy-efficient than LCDs, and also better for one’s eyes. I think there even are some, just very expensive
I think you’re just describing laser projection TVs ( though the projection is from the front or back, generally). They’re not that expensive — just huge. For their size, they’re much cheaper than LCDs and OLEDs, but they only come in about 100+".
Scanning laser projection is also used in virtual retinal displays, but that’s for stuff like HUDs or a head-mounted display since it projects on (or rather - into) a person’s eye instead of a screen.
Any kind of scanning display will probably have poor latency compared to LCD/OLED flat panels, I think, though.
Yes, except with part of the screen itself being the optical medium, bent light and all that. So that it wouldn’t have to be huge. I’m thinking about portable, foldable, rollable things … Not sure.
Now-now. With CRTs resolution is not an inherent trait anyway. You could trade off update frequency for better resolution and back.
When CRTs were common, LCD displays also were heavy, wasted tons of space and guzzled power. And for some time after that they were crap for your eyes.
No, the best CRT ever made is really not that, but also costs like an airplane’s wing.
An LCD display has resolution as its trait. A CRT display has a range of resolutions realistically usable with it. It doesn’t have a matrix of pixels, only a surface at which particles are shot.
So, the point before I forget it. While CRTs as they existed are a thing of the past, it would be cool to have some sort of optical displays based on interference (suppose, two lasers at the sides of the screen) or whatever, allowing similarly agile resolution change, and also more energy-efficient than LCDs, and also better for one’s eyes. I think there even are some, just very expensive. Removing the “one bad pixel” component would do wonders. Also this could probably be a better technology for foldable displays. As in - now you scratch a screen, you have to replace the matrix. While such a component wouldn’t cost as much a whole matrix, the lasers would be the expensive part.
Anyway, just dreaming.
I think you’re just describing laser projection TVs ( though the projection is from the front or back, generally). They’re not that expensive — just huge. For their size, they’re much cheaper than LCDs and OLEDs, but they only come in about 100+".
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Hisense-L5H-4K-UHD-Ultra-Short-Throw-Laser-TV-Projector-with-100-Light-Rejecting-Screen-Dolby-Vision-Dolby-Atmos-Google-TV/5003861077?classType=REGULAR
Scanning laser projection is also used in virtual retinal displays, but that’s for stuff like HUDs or a head-mounted display since it projects on (or rather - into) a person’s eye instead of a screen.
Any kind of scanning display will probably have poor latency compared to LCD/OLED flat panels, I think, though.
Yes, except with part of the screen itself being the optical medium, bent light and all that. So that it wouldn’t have to be huge. I’m thinking about portable, foldable, rollable things … Not sure.