> Modern flatscreens all have fixed resolutions
True by design.
> and purely digital interfaces,
True but not relevant. Even if you connected an LCD monitor over an analog interface like VGA or composite video, it would have to re-digitize the signal. The fact that a screen uses a digital interface can be designed independently of whether a screen has fixed pixels (LCD, OLED) or not (monochrome CRT with continuous phosphor, without shadow mask or aperture grille).
> ensuring a fixed aspect (width-to-height) ratio
True by definition because the pixels are pieces of physical hardware in the screens.
> and completely square pixels.
This is a design choice. Nothing prevents someone from designing an LCD or OLED matrix with non-square pixels. But there's also no good reason to do so. (Side note: Due to RGB striping, single-color subpixels have an aspect ratio of 1:3, so those are non-square.)
Potentially useful trivia: Some image/video formats support declaring the pixel aspect ratio. Examples include PNG ( <a href="https://w3c.github.io/png/#11pHYs" rel="nofollow">https://w3c.github.io/png/#11pHYs ) and Matroska.
It’s interesting though that composite PAL/NTSC (especially NTSC) has a massive effect on the picture, owed to the fact that the color carrier was embedded into the luminance spectrum, so a re-digitized PAL/NTSC signal will still look very different from a digital-output-first signal, or a re-digitized VGA or component signal.
There’s some evidence that console games of the era were sometimes designed for the effect composite NTSC has on the overall picture: <a href="https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-case-for-composite.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-case-for-co...
nayuki · · focus · HN ↗
True by design.
> and purely digital interfaces,
True but not relevant. Even if you connected an LCD monitor over an analog interface like VGA or composite video, it would have to re-digitize the signal. The fact that a screen uses a digital interface can be designed independently of whether a screen has fixed pixels (LCD, OLED) or not (monochrome CRT with continuous phosphor, without shadow mask or aperture grille).
> ensuring a fixed aspect (width-to-height) ratio
True by definition because the pixels are pieces of physical hardware in the screens.
> and completely square pixels.
This is a design choice. Nothing prevents someone from designing an LCD or OLED matrix with non-square pixels. But there's also no good reason to do so. (Side note: Due to RGB striping, single-color subpixels have an aspect ratio of 1:3, so those are non-square.)
Potentially useful trivia: Some image/video formats support declaring the pixel aspect ratio. Examples include PNG ( <a href="https://w3c.github.io/png/#11pHYs" rel="nofollow">https://w3c.github.io/png/#11pHYs ) and Matroska.
anyfoo · · focus · HN ↗
There’s some evidence that console games of the era were sometimes designed for the effect composite NTSC has on the overall picture: <a href="https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-case-for-composite.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-case-for-co...