Talk:Scan line

Simulated vs real scan lines

@Kvng: reverted my changing the example picture from a simulated image (Figure 1) to a photograph of a CRT (Figure 2) with the message "Not clearly more clearly". I'd first like to clarify that my last commit message "Use photo showing scan lines more clearly" referred to finding a better photograph, not that the photograph is clearer than the simulation.

• 
  Figure 1: Example of the scan line effect deliberately applied to an image
• 
  Figure 2: Scan lines on a Commodore 1084 monitor with uneven illumination due to asynchrony with the camera shutter

I believe that, clarity aside, a real image gives a better representation of scan lines than a simulation, on which the effect is stronger than in reality but much more even.

Going forward, would anyone have any thoughts on these three options:

1. Have only the simulation: shows the effect more clearly though exaggerated
2. Have only the photograph: gives a true representation, including the uneven illumination due to unsynchronised exposure
3. Have both

I personally vote for 3, with 2 a close second.

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What I think would make everyone happy is a closeup picture of a monochrome CRT where we can see the real scan lines, not just infer their existence. Anyone have old equipment and a macro lens? ~Kvng (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

{{{annotations}}}

Detail of scan lines on a Commodore 1084 monitor

@Kvng: file:Zork_on_CRT_display.jpg and file:Amiga_2000_Wikipedia_logo.jpg are already such images, but the scan lines are hard to see in the thumbnail. We could crop it as follows. What do you think? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Both of those appear to be color screens so the shadow mask is interfering with the ability to see the scan lines clearly. The simulated version is better than either of these at any magnification IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Nascom display character set; characters 0-127. Photographed on a non-interlaced monochrome CRT.

@Kvng: How about this one? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's more of what I had in mind but not obviously better than Figure 1. Perhaps I'm just being overly picky. It would be good to hear some other opinions. ~Kvng (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)