Like pianos. Unless they are very good, their value tends to go in the negative numbers with time, as you have to move them somehow.

In my parents place, an apartment in a second floor, there's an upright Yamaha that my dad bought in the late 70s or early 80s. I think they brought them in through the stairs, but like 10 years ago an elevator was added to the building lobby, and I don't think there is enough space to move it around. I think the piano will remain with the apartment forever :D

I get the value over time, but the original store owner bought it when it was brand new, so I wonder if Sony didn't have a lot of sales even in Japan, and this one guy was the only one who had the money and that one Sony guy got insanely lucky it was exactly what they wanted. I'm trying to read between the lines of how the previous owner is describing it and the fact that this TV was so rare some people thought it was fake.

Ouch, that is lucky.

I remember putting some keys into an electrical socket when I was quite young. My hand must have bridged live and neutral, so the current only flowed from thumb to forefinger rather than through my chest to my feet. But it was accompanied by a flash of light and an arc that I saw as a forked tongue. I told my mom that it had bitten me :)

Agreed. I’m with Quark; I want to wake up in Heaven and have no idea how I got there.

I think it was a time before the vintage feels for CRTs really. Sure, there were greybeards naysaying the coming of the LCD due to motion artefacts and smearing but the rest of users just wanted something high-res and flicker-free.

Well, we are discussing a CRT TV that was $40k new a life time ago, so perhaps the fact that it costs $599 to get a 480Hz OLED today is not a consideration. To the point though: it is a fallacy to believe that CRTs could arbitrarily shape their resolution. While the input signal could cover a wide range of possible resolutions and refresh rates depending on the bandwidth supported, the existence of apperture grilles or shadow masks imposed a fixed digital reality that limited the maximum possible resolution to much lower values than the typical 4k panels that we have today. The "pixels" didn't become larger on lower resolutions: they just covered more dots on the mask. We can get much better results today with scaling than we ever could on CRTs, as awesome a technology as they were 40 years ago.

Any CRT given its driving circuits and deflection mechanisms can take it. But yeah, refresh rates of CRT aren't really tied to price.

For some reason I remember 83Hz being the highest refresh rate supported by my XGA CRT, but I think it was only running at SVGA (800x600) in order to pull that rate.

Some demos could throw pixels into VRAM that fast, and it was wild looking. Like the 60Hz soap-opera effect but even more so.

I still feel that way looking at >30fps content since I really don't consume much of it.

> some programs such as the original DOOM were even able to squeeze 70Hz out of them by running at a different resolution while matching the horizontal refresh rate.

400p at 70 Hz was the default resolution of the VGA, pretty much all the classic mode 13h games ran at 70 Hz.

PAL had interlacing

Have you ever seen high speed footage of a CRT in operation? The phosphors on most late-80s/90s TVs and color graphic computer displays decayed instantaneously. A pixel illuminated at the beginning of a scanline would be gone well before the beam reached the end of the scanline. You see a rectangular image, rather than a scanning dot, entirely due to persistence of vision.

Slow-decay phosphors were much more common on old "green/amber screen" terminals and monochrome computer displays like those built into the Commodore PET and certain makes of TRS-80. In fact there's a demo/cyberpunk short story that uses the decay of the PET display's phosphor to display images with shading the PET was nominally not capable of (due to being 1-bit monochrome character-cell pseudographics): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n87d7j0hfOE

There are no pixels in CRT. The guns go left to right, ¥r¥n, left to right, while True for line in range(line_number).

The RGB stripes or dots are just stripes or dots, they're not tied to pixels. There would be RGB guns that are physically offset to each others, coupled with a strategically designed mesh plates, in such ways that e- from each guns sort of moire into only hitting the right stripes or dots. Apparently fractions of inches of offsets were all it took.

The three guns, really more like fast acting lightbulbs, received brightness signals for each respective RGB channels. Incidentally that means they could go between brightness zero to max couple times over 60[Hz] * 640[px] * 480[px] or so.

Interlacing means the guns draw every other lines but not necessarily pixels, because CRTs has beam spot sizes at least.

No, you don't sacrifice refresh rate! The refresh rate is the same. 50 Hz interlaced and 50 Hz non-interlaced are both ~50 Hz, approx 270 visible scanlines, and the display is refreshed at ~50 Hz in both cases. The difference is that in the 50 Hz interlaced case, alternate frames are offset by 0.5 scanlines, the producing device arranging the timing to make this work on the basis that it's producing even rows on one frame and odd rows on the other. And the offset means the odd rows are displayed slightly lower than the even ones.

This is a valid assumption for 25 Hz double-height TV or film content. It's generally noisy and grainy, typically with no features that occupy less than 1/~270 of the picture vertically for long enough to be noticeable. Combined with persistence of vision, the whole thing just about hangs together.

This sucks for 50 Hz computer output. (For example, Acorn Electron or BBC Micro.) It's perfect every time, and largely the same every time, and so the interlace just introduces a repeated 25 Hz 0.5 scanline jitter. Best turned off, if the hardware can do that. (Even if it didn't annoy you, you'll not be more annoyed if it's eliminated.)

This also sucks for 25 Hz double-height computer output. (For example, Amiga 640x512 row mode.) It's perfect every time, and largely the same every time, and so if there are any features that occupy less than 1/~270 of the picture vertically, those fucking things will stick around repeatedly, and produce an annoying 25 Hz flicker, and it'll be extra annoying because the computer output is perfect and sharp. (And if there are no such features - then this is the 50 Hz case, and you're better off without the interlace.)

I decided to stick to the 50 Hz case, as I know the scanline counts - but my recollection is that going past 50 Hz still sucks. I had a PC years ago that would do 85 Hz interlaced. Still terrible.

You assume that non interlaced computer screens in the mid 90s were 60Hz. I wish they were. I was using Apple displays and those were definitely 30Hz.