Even 576i on a CRT looked sharper and more vivid than 1080p YouTube todayYou have to watch 4k video on a 1080p display now for it to look any good
You're retarded that's why
>>107826433Explain what? You had a lower resolution screen. You fucking idiot.
>>107826433>>107826453This and the fact that a lot of media has lossy compression that makes 720p look far worse than it really is.
>>107826486I mean, yeah, it all depends on the original resolution of the thing. Even if you see 1080p or 4k on youtube, if the original video was 360p it's not going to look great. Not to mention youtube transcodes everything you upload to it a few times over.
>>107826453This i have an old laptop with a 720p screen and bad vids just fit on it.
>>107826433I render my shit in 720p and upscale it to 1440pPeople are falling on their butts thinking im doing render farm work because i charge them like i do.I like AI time
>>107826433the jews stole you're pixels
>>107826433>this is your brain on zoomerimagine thinking 1080p youtube is 1080p
https://xkcd.com/1683/
>>107826433Relativity. Moving from 30 FPS to 60 FPS feels silky smooth. Moving from 120 FPS to 60 FPS feels choppy and gritty.
>>107826433Pretty sure YouTube reencoded the old 720p videos to save space and fucked them up in the process. I'm with you on that one, old 720p was sharp.
>>107826433I had a 720p HD-DVD player and a 32" 720p TV. Movies looked amazing. This anon is right: >>107827305Youtube just fails. Anyone with any doubts...if you own an actual television with an antenna... Turn on some Fox sporting event. Make sure you're not using NextGen (the new 4K format). The picture is razor sharp. Once again, YouTube sucks.
>>107826433nobody had a crt in 2010 you fucking zoomtard
>>107827433I have a CRT in 2026
>>107826433youtube crippled the bitrate for 1080p and below
>>107827433>nobody had a crt in 2010 you fucking zoomtardI had CRT lying arround till 2014.
>>107827697>lyingthe only true thing about your post
retard op. a fixed grid display has to stretch lower resolutions. a crt doesnt have to stretch things its not a fixed resolution. it accurately displays 500 to 4k with no blurring or stretching from the original.
>>107826433>professional television, shows and movies I watched on a 17" screen from a few feet away lookex better than some random teenager's youtube videosdamn nigga you retarded
>>107826433Could be bitrate, could be screen size. YT is notorious for reducing their bitrate for saving data.
>>107826452fpbp
>>107826433It's YouTube compression. An uncompressed 1080p bluray rip looks better on a 1080p monitor than a 4k YouTube video. Same goes for most other streaming services.
>>107827713Fucker, a CRT is also a fixed grid display.
>>107826433Resolution means fuck all when the bitrate is shit, compare 4k bluray to 4k YouTube or Netflix and the difference is night and day
>>107826433720p always looked bad. Just at the time of release it looked better than previously available resolutions which is why you remember it as looking good, because relative to the other options at the time, it did.
>>107827788lol, no it isn't
>>107826433Lower bitrates.
>>107827986It literally is. Have a CRT nearby? Look at it closely. You can see the "pixels". Even turned off. Damn kids, get off my lawn.
>>107827433I have 3 in currentyear
>>107828169they're not pixels, moron
>>107826433Shitty encodes. That's literally it. You have to watch ≥1440p YouTube on a 1080p display now if you want it to look decent.
>>107828659Thus, the quotation marks, Karen.
>>107826433Smaller screens and as other have said youtube is not a good example cause they have crushed a lot the quality with their compression system all in order to maximize performance of the platform and users
>>107826433>looked
>>107826433bitrate/compression artifacts. If you look at the actual amount of data being sent it's trivial regardless of the resolution from any service essentially. They save on bandwidth and you get a shitty experience even though technology has increased over 20 years.
>>107827697Lying around isn't in use.
almost as if resolution has nothing to do with quality you retarded fucking niggers
>>107828022this, good 480p dvd rips look so good and sovl on a 1080p screen
>>107826433youtube is mostly watched on mobile phones. they encode videos for 6 inch screens
>>107828863you can cram 100 megabits into a 64 x 48 video stream but nobody is going to call it high quality
>>107826433>anon discovers bitrate
>>107826452>If it ain't broke, break itI fookin love New Normal
>>107827788Phosphors are not pixels. You can partially light a phosphor, its this partial lighting, and smooth brightness gradient across phosphors that give them superior scaling over actual fixed pixel displays, where each pixel is lit uniformly.
How do I get this far into the thread? And nobody is just talking about the point that it is just not about the pixels but the actual bit rate. Sure, it might be a higher pixel count, but the bit rate at that pixel count has been lowered and lowered every year. So the overall quality is worse
>>107829386you didn't actually read the thread then
>>107829400Correct. I simply scrolled to the bottom and responded like most people here. I can't even read. How's your day going?
>>107828169teh dots can be partially lit, pixels can't, color resolution is limited on crts by the mask , but luminance is not.
>>107826433I wondered this too using an old monitor I had from 2013. TN panel, looked crisp. Looked even crisper on Windows 7 but Windows 11 looked smeary.
>>107829221>I'm a braindead rodent everyone!No one cares.
>>107829609Sewer dweller mad, kek
>>107827713>>107829365>>107829558Fucking retard, all non-B&W CRTs ARE fixed grid.The TECHNOLOGY behind it is capable of producing a vector picture, the DEVICE itself is not.It is not set up to "partially light phosphors" beyond what will be produced by the inherent defect of the tech.Those are fucking PIXELS, you absolute fucking clueless mongoloid. CRT can only light them up or not with a uniform brightness offset across the entire screen.The HARDWARE is HARD FUCKING CODED to work from the color grid backwards because of how digital images fundamentally work.HYPOTHETICALLY, linearly and gradually rescaling the image while being color-grid agnostic is possible on the hardware level, but that would require the hardware in question to have a complex algorithm for rendering logical pixels via an intersection of physical pixels built right into it.Which it's fucking NOT. And with resolutions of back-in-the-day, it would look like FUCKING SHIT.YOU CLUELESS UNDERAGE NIGGER.
>>107829847CRTs are analogue, not digital.
>>107829889Fucking illiterate mongoloid>all non-B&W CRTs ARE fixed grid.Only B&W CRTs are capable of producing an analogue IMAGE. Color ones were NEVER made for this purpose.The signal being analogue doesn't mean shit when the data they are working with is DIGITAL.
>>107826433bit starvation
don't snatch YIFY encodes, problem solved
>>107829847you have a fundemental misunderstanding of how crts work, improve this before atrempting to argue your retarded points.
>>107829847crts draw horizontal lines, crts are analog, there is no a fixed limit to how many lines you draw, beyond the physical limits of the tube/circuitry if you tell the gun to draw more 2x more lines , the beam can hit the same phosphors twice , in such a way that the phosphor is only partially lit, you can physically observe this phenomena , I will mention that if you go beyond 2x whatever the mask is capable, you start to get artifacts, where parts of the color information is missing, since too much is obstructed by the mask.t. have run a 4k signal on a 1920x1440p capable crtif you have an apeture grille type crt this is less of an issue.
>>107829847But a 19 inch CRT with 0.28 dot pitch is roughly the equivalent of 4K, much larger than the resolutions those days, retard
