• SpaceCowboy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    The huge improvements in TV screens have a lot to do with it too, I think.

    When we only had CRT screens at home it was a big jump in quality to go to the theater. But when you have a 4K screen in your living room, there’s less reason to go to the theater.

    • argv minus one@mastodon.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s not just that they were CRTs.

      You can get an excellent picture from the CRT computer monitors of the '90s and '00s, with high resolution (up to 2048×1536—better than 1080p!) and color rendering that’s arguably better than modern LCDs.

      CRT TVs had low resolution, and NTSC/PAL has pretty bad color fidelity as well, but one of those high-definition CRTs connected to an RGB component video input (like VGA) carrying high-definition content (DVD or Blu-Ray) is another story entirely.

      • SpaceCowboy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah I was talking about TVs… we are discussing movies after all. Moreover, TVs that the average person has.

        There’s a huge jump in quality between the TVs the average person has now compared to 20+ years ago.

        • argv minus one@mastodon.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, I’ve never heard of a truly high-definition (i.e. 1080p or above) CRT TV either. There were plenty of CRTs capable of high resolution, and they were affordable and had superb picture quality, but they weren’t TVs.

          I think that’s because the TV market, unlike the computer market, was hungry for big screens. A few ~40-inch CRT TVs did exist, but they were monstrously heavy (and expensive), whereas I can easily pick up and carry around an LCD of that size by myself.