Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

How does a screen work?

How does a screen work?

61 comments

·July 13, 2025

qwertox

Not only was the initial diagram all/explaining, but the "pop"-"pip" on zoom-unzoom of the image was just as nice as playing with a sheet of bubble wrap.

Wow, and that ruler on the right side, even with the sound.

One of the nicest pages I have been on.

And the landing page... https://www.makingsoftware.com/

It just keeps on giving.

seemaze

Agreed, very talented communicator. Reminds me of the wonderful work of Bartosz Ciechanowski

https://ciechanow.ski/archives/

mrbluecoat

Adding my congrats as well. The combination of well-written explanations for the semi-technical layperson combined with clear, intuitive graphics is a powerful instruction platform.

consumer451

This appears to be a lovely project. I wish the author all possible luck and success. I haven't joined a mailing list in a very long time, but I sure did in this case.

Sharlin

CRT displays are one of those analog technologies that are arguably much cooler than their digital successors. Think – a literan raygun, a particle accelerator, inside your monitor, creating the image you're looking at.

pavlov

Active matrix flat panels felt like incredibly cool technology when they became available in the 1990s.

Each individual pixel is driven by a transistor and capacitor that actively maintain the pixel state? Insane manufacturing magic.

Dead pixels used to be a big problem with LCD displays. Haven’t thought about that in at least twenty years.

Sharlin

True – but on the other hand, it was "only" a few million elements, and very large ones, compared to, say, the DRAM chips of the time. Monitors certainly make the engineering feat more tangible, though!

retrac

CRTs are still slightly magical to me. The image doesn't really exist. It's an illusion. If your eyes operated at electronic speeds, you would see a single incredibly bright dot-point drawing the raster pattern over and over. This YouTube video by "The Slow Mo Guys" shows this in action: https://youtu.be/3BJU2drrtCM?t=190

hinterlands

That slo-mo video is somewhat misleading, though. The phosphor glows for a good while, so there is a reasonable chunk of the image that's visible at any given time.

The problem in that video is that the exact location the beam is hitting is momentarily very bright, so they calibrated the exposure to that and everything else looks really dark.

layer8

The phosphor still drops off very quickly [0][1][2], roughly within a millisecond. That’s why you would need a 1000 Hz LCD/OLED screen with really high brightness (and strobing logic) to approximate CRT motion clarity. On a traditional NTSC/PAL CRT, 1 ms is just under 16 lines, but the latest line is already much brighter than the rest. The slow-motion recording showing roughly one line at a time therefore seems accurate.

[0] https://blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/crt-phosp...

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Phosphor-persistence-of-...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Stimulus-succession-on-C...

hinterlands

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. My assertion is that a visible image persists on the screen longer than it appears in the slo-mo clip. You can just point a camera with an adjustable shutter speed at a CRT and see it for yourself. Here's an example (might need to copy the URL and open in a new tab, they don't like hotlinking):

https://i.sstatic.net/5K61i.png

The brightly-lit band is the part of the frame scanned by the beam while the shutter was open. The part above is the afterimage, which, while not as bright, is definitely there.

bgnn

I'm not sure about this calculation though. Phosphor decays exponentially with a time constant of roughly 5ms (according to HP [1]). This means when a new frame comes at 60Hz refresh rate there is still 10-15% of the previous frame related excitation is present. This means there is considerable amount of nonlinearity, hence the performance is even worse than 10ms LCD/OLED displays.

Genuine question: why do you think CRTs are better?

[1] https://hpmemoryproject.org/an/pdf/an_115.pdf

wincy

I definitely like my new 240hz 4k oled HDR monitor, though. They're getting there! The data rate it's pushing through the displayport cable for uncompressed 4k HDR is something 80gb/s though. Absolutely mind boggling. Huge upgrade from my 1440p 165hz IPS monitor that had huge amounts of smearing when playing games.

f1shy

And still it was possible as a side attack, with just looking at the reflected brightness of a screen, to get a perfect image back.

YZF

There is some persistence in the pixels/phosphor though so it's not a complete illusion. But yes, your eyes are integrating over the frame. There is also interlacing...

I read something interesting recent but I'm not sure if it's true or not. That as you age your integration frame rate decreases.

jagged-chisel

When I learned how TV worked at the beginning of television history, I found it super cool that the camera and all the TVs across the country had their scanning beams synchronized. That camera was driving your TV, almost literally.

eastbound

I only recently found out that the tech to save images wasn’t invented, so they couldn’t display a revolving logo between shows. So… so the BBC had a permanent real-life logo with a permanent camera in front of it.

So yes, any image was extremely ephemeral at the time.

PS: Apparently it’s called a Noddy, it’s a video camera controlled by a servomotor to pan and tilt (or 'nod', hence the name Noddy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noddy_(camera)

grishka

To me the magical part about CRTs is color. I don't quite understand how the shadow mask works. Like, yeah, there are three guns, one for each color channel, and the openings in the mask match their layout, and somehow the beam coming out of each gun can only ever hit its corresponding phosphor dots. Even after being deflected. But... how? Also, wouldn't the deflection coils affect each of the three beams slightly differently?

Sharlin

It's parallax, basically. The pigment dots and mask holes are positioned such that when you look from the perspective of the "red" electron gun (*), you only see red pigment dots. Move a couple cm to the "blue" gun and the parallax shift now makes you to see only blue pigment dots instead. Or from the other direction, no matter which "red" dot you stand at, you only see the "red" gun through "your" hole.

The exact sizes, shapes, and positions of the pigment dot triples (and/or the mask holes) are presumably chosen so that this holds even away from the main axis. Also, the shape of the deflecting field is probably tuned to keep the rays as well-focused as possible. Similarly to how photographic lenses are carefully designed to minimize aberrations and softness even far from the optical axis.

(*) Simplifying a bit by assuming that the beam gets deflected immediately as it leaves the gun, which is of course inaccurate.

pulvinar

Each hole in the shadow mask acts as a pinhole camera, giving an inverted image (in electrons) of the three guns. All three beams get bent nearly the same amount, but yes there is some distortion which is traditionally corrected for by a set of convergence coils and corresponding circuit with knobs for static and dynamic convergence [0]. A pain to adjust, BTW.

[0] https://antiqueradio.org/art/RCACTC-11ConvergBoardNewRC.jpg

somat

For me it was the opposite. Learning how a monochrome CRT requires no mask sort of destroyed my world view of what a display had to have. pixels(even the quasi pixels as found in a color CRT mask) were not actually required or present.

As a result monochrome terminal text has this surprising sharpness to it.(surprising if you are used to color displays). But the real visual treat are the long persistence phosphor radar scopes.

grishka

That's the cool thing about analog video, it doesn't really have the concept of horizontal resolution. Especially when it's monochrome. It's made up of lines that continuously change brightness as they're drawn.

Color composite video, as far as I understand, does have a limit to the horizontal resolution because in all three standards the color information is encoded as a high-frequency signal added to the main (luminance) one, so that frequency is your upper limit on how quickly the luminance can change.

S-video, VGA, and component should, in theory, allow infinite horizontal resolution and color.

snovymgodym

> It's an illusion.

In a sense, all vision is.

grishka

All our senses are.

flysand7

Except the pain of hitting your pinky on a corner. That one's very real

LocalH

I have to take issue with the usage of the terms "pixel" and "subpixel" with regards to CRT. CRTs do not display discrete pixels. They display discrete scanlines, each one made up of a smoothly varying voltage across the line (and thus resolution is a function of both the DAC in the display device in the case of systems that generate a digital signal and then convert it to analog for display, and the hardware inside the CRT monitor). Also, there is no mapping between any "pixels" represented within that varying voltage and the separate color phosphor dots.

Even "digital RGB" isn't digital in terms of the CRT. It's only "digital" because each color channel has a nominal on and off voltage, with no in-between (outside of the separate intensity pin). However, the electron gun still has a rise and fall time that is not instant.

Displays didn't truly become digital for the masses until the LCD era, with DVI and HDMI signals. Even analog HD CRTs could accept these digital signals and display them.

rahimnathwani

Years ago I had an LG 32" wide-screen CRT TV. I chose that model because it had a VGA port. It advertised a resolution of 640x480.

I was thrilled when my computer let me choose a resolution of 848x480, and it worked perfectly.

Back in those days, the web was usable at that resolution.

mikepurvis

It still basically should be, so long as well-designed sites give you the "small screen"/mobile layout.

Even apart from that, a lot of laptops still have 1280x800 as the default resolution, and that's only double the width of 640x480. Honestly, I'd actually be more worried about OS and browser chrome eating up the space than websites themselves being unusable.

swores

> "It still basically should be, so long as well-designed sites..."

I believe that their point wasn't that "the web" has intrinsically changed, it was that too many sites are not well designed in this respect.

edit: they actually replied just before me and it seems that wasn't their point, but it would be my point (though I personally don't care about being able to use such a low resolution).

rahimnathwani

The 480 height is the bigger issue.

Try browsing on your phone in landscape mode.

killjoywashere

I happen to have a stereo microscope at my desk, so I put my Pixel 9 under there. At 100x mag (10x ocular x 10x objective) it looks like there are 3 layers: as I move my head around slightly (so the image is moving over my retinas), the blue moves faster and the red almost stays still, with green somewhere in the middle.

nu11ptr

Am I the only one who read this as the terminal program "screen" (the terminal multiplexer)?

vicurve

It was 50/50 for me as well but the screen source code is fairly readable and if I remember right eerily over-commented for Unix code! The function names actually make sense.

nyarlathotep_

Ha, I did that too.

ekunazanu

Everything on the site seems high quality, very much looking forward to the upcoming articles

ksec

LCD on paper you see lots of drawbacks, in practice modern state of the art LCD for TV is pretty damn good. We will soon have RGB LED Backlight LCD with WHVA+ Panel that is about as wide angle as IPS, 95%+ REC 2020 colour, and 1-2ms response time.

Phosphorescent blue OLEDs should reduce current OLED display energy usage by 20-30%. But it still seems to be way off for phones and mass usage.

hinterlands

I think it's fairly common for technologies to get really good just as they're becoming obsolete. Vacuum tubes, CRTs, optical disks, photographic film... in fact, they're often in some respects better than the early generations of the technology that replaces them.

But OLEDs just have too many advantages where it actually matters. Much lower power consumption, physically more compact (no need for backlight layers), etc.

tempestn

You might add ICE cars to that list. All kinds of cool stuff being developed around small turbocharged engines and other efficiency gains, excellent transmissions, etc.

kec

None of that really helps LCDs primary downsides of poor contrast ratio and relatively high energy consumption. Backlit displays will always inherently score worse on these metrics vs self emissive displays.

stalco

The ticker on the right is quite nice, but I perceive the sound as coming from within my nose (if that makes any sense) to the point that I thought something was going on with my sinuses for a full 3 seconds, and got panicked.

Wonderful content and website otherwise!

YZF

Put a magnifying glass on your LCD display and you can see the sub pixel pattern...

A few decades ago I worked on a huge machine that made LCD color filters.

ryandamm

Or just a drop of water…

apricot

This is a great project. I want to show it to as many teenagers as I can.

vojtechrichter

Very cool looking website. Looking forward to the quality content