Was the picture area of a CRT a parallelogram (instead of a true rectangle)?












2















This may seem like an absurd question at first, but I've been giving it some thought and I'm genuinely curious about the design details of these devices.



I was reading an answer on an unrelated Stack Exchange site about the retrace/flyback details on old CRTs, and the image attached to that answer piqued my interest:



NTSC scan lines



I understand that both the horizontal and vertical deflection of the electron beam is controlled by two sawtooth waves, the vertical running at the refresh rate and the horizontal running a few hundred times faster than that. I also understand that both sawtooths are constant sweeps, and not "stair stepped" to hold at any particular voltage to accommodate the viewable lines or retrace periods.



Here's the premise of my question: In the context of one single horizontal trace across the screen, the vertical position is also constantly increasing (towards the bottom) in preparation for the next scan line. It then follows that the scan line's vertical position at the left edge of the screen is slightly higher than the position at the right edge, and the whole screen is a parallelogram with left and right edges perfectly vertical, and top and bottom edges both slanted down towards the bottom right.



Assuming the premise is correct, was it common (or even feasible) for the designers of CRT computer displays to counteract this effect and make the screen and its contents perfectly square? Would such a compensation have even been worth the effort?










share|improve this question







New contributor




smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    2















    This may seem like an absurd question at first, but I've been giving it some thought and I'm genuinely curious about the design details of these devices.



    I was reading an answer on an unrelated Stack Exchange site about the retrace/flyback details on old CRTs, and the image attached to that answer piqued my interest:



    NTSC scan lines



    I understand that both the horizontal and vertical deflection of the electron beam is controlled by two sawtooth waves, the vertical running at the refresh rate and the horizontal running a few hundred times faster than that. I also understand that both sawtooths are constant sweeps, and not "stair stepped" to hold at any particular voltage to accommodate the viewable lines or retrace periods.



    Here's the premise of my question: In the context of one single horizontal trace across the screen, the vertical position is also constantly increasing (towards the bottom) in preparation for the next scan line. It then follows that the scan line's vertical position at the left edge of the screen is slightly higher than the position at the right edge, and the whole screen is a parallelogram with left and right edges perfectly vertical, and top and bottom edges both slanted down towards the bottom right.



    Assuming the premise is correct, was it common (or even feasible) for the designers of CRT computer displays to counteract this effect and make the screen and its contents perfectly square? Would such a compensation have even been worth the effort?










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      2












      2








      2








      This may seem like an absurd question at first, but I've been giving it some thought and I'm genuinely curious about the design details of these devices.



      I was reading an answer on an unrelated Stack Exchange site about the retrace/flyback details on old CRTs, and the image attached to that answer piqued my interest:



      NTSC scan lines



      I understand that both the horizontal and vertical deflection of the electron beam is controlled by two sawtooth waves, the vertical running at the refresh rate and the horizontal running a few hundred times faster than that. I also understand that both sawtooths are constant sweeps, and not "stair stepped" to hold at any particular voltage to accommodate the viewable lines or retrace periods.



      Here's the premise of my question: In the context of one single horizontal trace across the screen, the vertical position is also constantly increasing (towards the bottom) in preparation for the next scan line. It then follows that the scan line's vertical position at the left edge of the screen is slightly higher than the position at the right edge, and the whole screen is a parallelogram with left and right edges perfectly vertical, and top and bottom edges both slanted down towards the bottom right.



      Assuming the premise is correct, was it common (or even feasible) for the designers of CRT computer displays to counteract this effect and make the screen and its contents perfectly square? Would such a compensation have even been worth the effort?










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      This may seem like an absurd question at first, but I've been giving it some thought and I'm genuinely curious about the design details of these devices.



      I was reading an answer on an unrelated Stack Exchange site about the retrace/flyback details on old CRTs, and the image attached to that answer piqued my interest:



      NTSC scan lines



      I understand that both the horizontal and vertical deflection of the electron beam is controlled by two sawtooth waves, the vertical running at the refresh rate and the horizontal running a few hundred times faster than that. I also understand that both sawtooths are constant sweeps, and not "stair stepped" to hold at any particular voltage to accommodate the viewable lines or retrace periods.



      Here's the premise of my question: In the context of one single horizontal trace across the screen, the vertical position is also constantly increasing (towards the bottom) in preparation for the next scan line. It then follows that the scan line's vertical position at the left edge of the screen is slightly higher than the position at the right edge, and the whole screen is a parallelogram with left and right edges perfectly vertical, and top and bottom edges both slanted down towards the bottom right.



      Assuming the premise is correct, was it common (or even feasible) for the designers of CRT computer displays to counteract this effect and make the screen and its contents perfectly square? Would such a compensation have even been worth the effort?







      crt-monitor display






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 3 hours ago









      smitellismitelli

      1111




      1111




      New contributor




      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      smitelli is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          IIRC, the electron gun was actually installed in a position where it was rotated slightly relative to the tube, to compensate for this effect, so the scan lines did end up being horizontal.






          share|improve this answer
























          • ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

            – Tommy
            49 mins ago



















          0














          To expand further, it actually wasn't especially feasible — there is no easy solution that doesn't eliminate the interlacing.



          Interlacing works because the timing of the vertical retrace varies. On odd fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes at the beginning of a line. On even fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes in the middle. Because of the diagonal scan, that sets one field 0.5 lines higher than the other. If the scan weren't diagonal then the two fields would not enmesh in that manner — they would instead sit exactly on top of each other, just starting in different places.



          On a classic TV it's undesirable to make the diagonal scan anything other than diagonal because the flying spot during the capture process was diagonal. So you wouldn't be unskewing the image, you'd be skewing it.



          On a monitor life is slightly different, and true horizontals are likely accurately to reflect the image. But it's also generally the case that monitors have smaller scan lines in order to output a higher resolution, so the effect is less visible anyway — on a 14" 800x600 monitor you're already talking about the right hand side being less than 3mm lower than the left, but being almost 28.5cm to the right. With a multi-sync monitor, how far down the right is compared to the left is a variable function of the resolution.






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "648"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            smitelli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9426%2fwas-the-picture-area-of-a-crt-a-parallelogram-instead-of-a-true-rectangle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            IIRC, the electron gun was actually installed in a position where it was rotated slightly relative to the tube, to compensate for this effect, so the scan lines did end up being horizontal.






            share|improve this answer
























            • ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

              – Tommy
              49 mins ago
















            2














            IIRC, the electron gun was actually installed in a position where it was rotated slightly relative to the tube, to compensate for this effect, so the scan lines did end up being horizontal.






            share|improve this answer
























            • ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

              – Tommy
              49 mins ago














            2












            2








            2







            IIRC, the electron gun was actually installed in a position where it was rotated slightly relative to the tube, to compensate for this effect, so the scan lines did end up being horizontal.






            share|improve this answer













            IIRC, the electron gun was actually installed in a position where it was rotated slightly relative to the tube, to compensate for this effect, so the scan lines did end up being horizontal.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            rwallacerwallace

            9,892450148




            9,892450148













            • ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

              – Tommy
              49 mins ago



















            • ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

              – Tommy
              49 mins ago

















            ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

            – Tommy
            49 mins ago





            ... which means that it is still a parallelogram, it's just the sides that aren't vertical rather than the top and bottom that aren't horizontal!

            – Tommy
            49 mins ago











            0














            To expand further, it actually wasn't especially feasible — there is no easy solution that doesn't eliminate the interlacing.



            Interlacing works because the timing of the vertical retrace varies. On odd fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes at the beginning of a line. On even fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes in the middle. Because of the diagonal scan, that sets one field 0.5 lines higher than the other. If the scan weren't diagonal then the two fields would not enmesh in that manner — they would instead sit exactly on top of each other, just starting in different places.



            On a classic TV it's undesirable to make the diagonal scan anything other than diagonal because the flying spot during the capture process was diagonal. So you wouldn't be unskewing the image, you'd be skewing it.



            On a monitor life is slightly different, and true horizontals are likely accurately to reflect the image. But it's also generally the case that monitors have smaller scan lines in order to output a higher resolution, so the effect is less visible anyway — on a 14" 800x600 monitor you're already talking about the right hand side being less than 3mm lower than the left, but being almost 28.5cm to the right. With a multi-sync monitor, how far down the right is compared to the left is a variable function of the resolution.






            share|improve this answer




























              0














              To expand further, it actually wasn't especially feasible — there is no easy solution that doesn't eliminate the interlacing.



              Interlacing works because the timing of the vertical retrace varies. On odd fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes at the beginning of a line. On even fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes in the middle. Because of the diagonal scan, that sets one field 0.5 lines higher than the other. If the scan weren't diagonal then the two fields would not enmesh in that manner — they would instead sit exactly on top of each other, just starting in different places.



              On a classic TV it's undesirable to make the diagonal scan anything other than diagonal because the flying spot during the capture process was diagonal. So you wouldn't be unskewing the image, you'd be skewing it.



              On a monitor life is slightly different, and true horizontals are likely accurately to reflect the image. But it's also generally the case that monitors have smaller scan lines in order to output a higher resolution, so the effect is less visible anyway — on a 14" 800x600 monitor you're already talking about the right hand side being less than 3mm lower than the left, but being almost 28.5cm to the right. With a multi-sync monitor, how far down the right is compared to the left is a variable function of the resolution.






              share|improve this answer


























                0












                0








                0







                To expand further, it actually wasn't especially feasible — there is no easy solution that doesn't eliminate the interlacing.



                Interlacing works because the timing of the vertical retrace varies. On odd fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes at the beginning of a line. On even fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes in the middle. Because of the diagonal scan, that sets one field 0.5 lines higher than the other. If the scan weren't diagonal then the two fields would not enmesh in that manner — they would instead sit exactly on top of each other, just starting in different places.



                On a classic TV it's undesirable to make the diagonal scan anything other than diagonal because the flying spot during the capture process was diagonal. So you wouldn't be unskewing the image, you'd be skewing it.



                On a monitor life is slightly different, and true horizontals are likely accurately to reflect the image. But it's also generally the case that monitors have smaller scan lines in order to output a higher resolution, so the effect is less visible anyway — on a 14" 800x600 monitor you're already talking about the right hand side being less than 3mm lower than the left, but being almost 28.5cm to the right. With a multi-sync monitor, how far down the right is compared to the left is a variable function of the resolution.






                share|improve this answer













                To expand further, it actually wasn't especially feasible — there is no easy solution that doesn't eliminate the interlacing.



                Interlacing works because the timing of the vertical retrace varies. On odd fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes at the beginning of a line. On even fields it is triggered so that scanning resumes in the middle. Because of the diagonal scan, that sets one field 0.5 lines higher than the other. If the scan weren't diagonal then the two fields would not enmesh in that manner — they would instead sit exactly on top of each other, just starting in different places.



                On a classic TV it's undesirable to make the diagonal scan anything other than diagonal because the flying spot during the capture process was diagonal. So you wouldn't be unskewing the image, you'd be skewing it.



                On a monitor life is slightly different, and true horizontals are likely accurately to reflect the image. But it's also generally the case that monitors have smaller scan lines in order to output a higher resolution, so the effect is less visible anyway — on a 14" 800x600 monitor you're already talking about the right hand side being less than 3mm lower than the left, but being almost 28.5cm to the right. With a multi-sync monitor, how far down the right is compared to the left is a variable function of the resolution.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 36 mins ago









                TommyTommy

                15.5k14376




                15.5k14376






















                    smitelli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    smitelli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    smitelli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    smitelli is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9426%2fwas-the-picture-area-of-a-crt-a-parallelogram-instead-of-a-true-rectangle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Knooppunt Holsloot

                    Altaar (religie)

                    Gregoriusmis