alfshusen wrote:The sharpness of the image on a display depends on resolution and the size of the monitor. The same pixel resolution will most likely be sharper on a smaller monitor, and gradualy loose sharpness on larger monitors because the same amount of pixels are being spread out over a larger number of inches.
Such as BVM D24 and 32. They both have 1000TVL. I have them both and when compared, they are pretty close, but I can confirm that the D24 always will be a bit sharper than D32.
What kind of use case are you seeing where the D24 actually provides *a more detailed reproduction of content* than the D32?
I'm not sure of the best terminology to use here, but let's note there's a difference between the detail a display can reproduce, versus its density.
Put another way, think of camera pixel density: In photography circles comparing "100% crops" is usually considered a bad practice (though there are special cases). In short, what's done is that you take a picture from camera A with a small sensor, and display its pixels up to just the same size as those taken from camera B with a big sensor. For *certain* kinds of work this can be a useful comparison, but in photography (as in gaming) the usual practice is to consider the full image.
In most cases the comparison between camera A and B has their images normalized to the same size reproduction - like a print, or fit to a monitor - rather than "peeping" the individual pixels of the image.
FinalBaton wrote:but when viewing from 6 ft and + away, won't the 32 still have perfectly solid scan lines, that look like a solid line of colour where you can't spot the individual cells?
As FinalBaton suggests, you normalize a CRT monitor's output by sitting an appropriate distance away from it. Of course this is sometimes easier said than done.
My suggestion is that perhaps you can say that the D24 is "sharper" in terms of real space, but this isn't the same thing as saying that the D24 actually shows more detail. This would be more of an illusion stemming from the limits of human vision, if indeed the tubes have an identical TVL spec (which, you'll note, is a normalized spec which allows us to ignore the effects of size; the user is supposed to know their use case and therefore how big a set they need to purchase, with D24 appearing more appropriate for a desktop workstation and viewing distances of just one to two feet, and the D32 probably being meant for more normal TV viewing distances).
For the D32 to appear as "sharp" as the D24 you'd really need to see it have a much higher TVL spec, like comparing a 4K monitor in a large format which has the same real pixel size as a smaller 1080p one. In fact, you can have a low-TVL set give a better pixel density than a higher specced tube which is bigger...and yet the small and probably cheaper tube will naturally look sharper because it's smaller.
What that would mean is that if the D24 is an ideal size for you, then it would be a fine option. But if the user wants a bigger tube, the D32's not actually showing less detail.
To finish up my little diatribe, I'd leave this comment in closing: There's potential for eyestrain at both ends of the spectrum. Squinting or straining to see things on a too-small set is obvious, but I've also noticed that a large set needs to have sharply defined pixels as well so that there's no confusion about the boundary of each pixel. No doubt this is a big reason why 1080p has been so well accepted by many.
