These days, kids identify them by the aspect ratio.

  • Hypersapien@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      4
      ·
      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
        5
        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
          2
          ·
          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
            5
            ·
            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.

        • zero_gravitas@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What they’re referring to is that analogue CRTs don’t really have a fixed horizontal resolution. The screen has a finite number of horizontal lines (i.e. rows) which it moves down through on a regular-timed basis, but as the beam scans across horizontally it can basically be continuous (limited by the signal and the radius of the beam). This is why screen resolutions are referred to by their vertical resolutions alone (e.g. 360p = 360 lines, progressive scan [as opposed to interlaced]).

          I’m probably wrong on the specifics, but that gives the gist and enough keywords to find a better explanation.

          [EDIT: A word.]

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

      VHS was capable of not bad quality, people just had a lot bad equipment.

      Some TV shows (if they were crazy) were shot on film so you could re digitize them now in 4 or 8k and they’d look amazing. But there was also a lot of junk that was out there.

      And as others have mentioned if you do an awful job of digitizing it then you could take something that looked good and throw all of that quality away. But if the tape wasn’t stored in good condition then it could just struggle to be digitized in the first place when done properly.