2

In chronological order of roughly1 increasing total pixel count (world record style), please list progressive scan raster CRT monitors (not vector monitors) that were in production (not prototypes). Neither bit-addressable graphics nor color are required, only the maximum raw resolution of the screen. Special-purpose monitors (such as for medical or military applications) and computers with built-in monitors are allowed. Direct-view, front projection, and rear projection displays are allowed. This list is community wiki so anyone can edit it.

If a single year sets two world records, let's distinguish the two records by month and day, if available.

1 But if a newer monitor has fewer total pixels but is better in some significant way than an older monitor, keep both monitors in the list. For example, if the newer monitor supports color but the older one doesn't, or if the newer monitor supports a higher vertical resolution than the older one.

wizzwizz4
  • 18,543
  • 10
  • 78
  • 144
snips-n-snails
  • 17,548
  • 3
  • 63
  • 120
  • 5
    Because CRTs are analogue devices the horizontal resolution of a CRT monitor isn't fixed, even for non-multi sync monitors. A CRT monitor can accept any horizontal resolution from 1 to infinity, though the upper limit of what can be effectively shown on the screen will be limited the overall bandwidth of the monitor and cables. Also, while the number horizontal lines is fixed for any given set of timings, most CRT displays will be able to display a few more lines than those timings are meant to display. –  Jun 19 '17 at 21:32
  • @RossRidge I would be interested to learn of any computers that abuse the horizontal resolution to achieve higher pixel counts than the monitor can actually resolve. – snips-n-snails Jun 19 '17 at 21:58
  • 1
    It's more of an issue of monitors not being able to effectively display the horizontal resolution they're meant to display. I remember a lot of cheap CGA and VGA monitors back in the day that were pretty blurry and probably couldn't display 640 and 720 distinct horizontal pixels respectively, but I never tested them. It would be hard to verify today how well any given monitor in the past how displayed the horizontal resolution it claimed. Some of the 1600x1200 workstation displays I've seen seemed to be pushed past their limits, but it also wasn't something I tested. –  Jun 19 '17 at 22:20
  • For analog monitors, you need to specify a contrast ratio. The resolution does not go to infinity, as the contrast of images drops below being perceivable first due to frequency response roll-off of the electron gun driver circuitry. – hotpaw2 Jun 20 '17 at 02:01
  • @hotpaw2 Yes, I was considering 50% or 80% but did any computers ever try to push the horizontal resolution to the point where the contrast ratio was an issue on every monitor? – snips-n-snails Jun 20 '17 at 03:04
  • 1
    @traal You should specify if you accept also TV sets, since they significantly predate any computer monitors (or even computers), and their use as cheap monitors began only in the late 1970s. – Radovan Garabík Jun 20 '17 at 12:04
  • for monochrome CRTs, the resolution is effectively infinite because the size of a physical pixel on-screen is the size of a phospor molecule (smaller than the human eye can resolve). the limit on the number of pixels you can cram in is based on how tightly you can focus the electron gun and how fast you can sweep it across the screen. the limitations on sweeping the beam across the screen to form a raster are the reason vector displays were popular, instead of sweeping the entire screen a vector display only needed to sweep the lit portions. – Ken Gober Jun 20 '17 at 13:00
  • Is the question not worded correctly? Are we talking about CRTs (the actual tube itself) or are we talking about complete monitors (including power supply and all circuitry needed to display a picture), because a lot of the limits on resolution (esp. on monochrome CRTs) came from the power supply and circuitry. – Ken Gober Jun 20 '17 at 13:03
  • 1
    Ignoring monochrome monitors, where you could simply rely on vector display for "infinite" resolution, doesn't the evolution of the resolution of color CRT monitors coincide with improvements in shadow mask and aperture grille technology? – Brian H Jun 20 '17 at 14:43
  • 1
    @traal several computers from the 80's abused the CRT horizontal resolutions all the time. For example, the C64 could display 320 pixels horizontally with sprites, different colors, etc. However, NTSC standards (PAL is not much different) could really only display about 160 color clocks per line. But that didn't stop computers from displaying more. The effect was higher resolutions that "sometimes" work. For example, checkerboard patterns of white/black are bad because of NTSC color bleed. Checkerboards with black/dark-grey are better and work as expected. – cbmeeks Jun 21 '17 at 20:27
  • @cbmeeks This answer says an NTSC signal has a usable horizontal luma resolution of 320 pixels. Yes, the chroma resolution is less. – snips-n-snails Jun 21 '17 at 20:45
  • @traal that's what I meant by "color clocks". Which is what the chroma signal is sometimes called. Especially from my Atari days. – cbmeeks Jun 22 '17 at 12:09

2 Answers2

6
Dai
  • 813
  • 6
  • 15
snips-n-snails
  • 17,548
  • 3
  • 63
  • 120
  • 1
    The 2250 beats the Sun-2 on overall pixels, but I left it in because it has a higher horizontal resolution. There were very high resolution CRTs in the 90s, for CAD and medical purposes, but chronological information is hard to find... I’m pretty sure the 510 wasn’t the first 3MP CRT. – Stephen Kitt Jun 20 '17 at 05:04
  • RCA 630-TS is disqualified by the "screen that a computer of the day could support", unless you know of mainframes that interfaced with the TVs of the day. It's also interlaced, not progressive (though it most likely can display progressive input), and it's not the first commercially available TV set anyway. IBM 2250 is also not progressive, but a vector display. – Radovan Garabík Jun 20 '17 at 07:49
  • @Radovan indeed, thanks for clarifying that; the Tektronix 4014 (which I’d mentioned in a previous edit) was also a vector display. High-resolution raster displays only came into being in the early 80s on workstations. – Stephen Kitt Jun 20 '17 at 10:47
  • @RadovanGarabík 480i is achieved by writing 262 lines in 1/30s, shifting the vertical start point by 1 scan line, then writing the next 262 lines in 1/30s. 240p works the same way but without shifting the vertical start point, so you get 60 full progressive frames per second at half resolution. – snips-n-snails Jun 20 '17 at 16:57
  • I've removed the "screen that a computer of the day could support" requirement. – snips-n-snails Jun 20 '17 at 17:54
  • I found documentation for the Cromenco Super Dazzler at 756 x 484 in 1979, which is higher resolution than the 1981 IBM MDA, and is a real graphics card where the MDA wasn't a bit-mapped system until the Hercules came along. But I haven't found any reference yet as to what monitors supported the full card resolution. – manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact Jun 22 '17 at 02:20
  • The Xerox Alto had a 606×808 raster CRT in 1973 but probably doesn’t qualify as a production system. – Stephen Kitt Jun 24 '17 at 12:31
  • @StephenKitt The Alto wasn't commercially available, but they made 2,000 of them, so it might qualify as a production system. However, it uses interlacing to get 606×808. – snips-n-snails Jun 25 '17 at 05:45
2

1941 : about 320x262 (depending on contrast and including overscan) - Any early NTSC-1 B&W television, as abused by video games consoles to display in a non-interlaced, thus progressive format.

hotpaw2
  • 8,183
  • 1
  • 19
  • 46