10 Feb
2011
10 Feb
'11
10:57 p.m.
On 2011 Feb 10, at 2:23 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 02/10/11 21:38, Brent Hilpert<hilpert at
cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
No kidding.
On 2011 Feb 9, at 2:17 AM, Christian Corti
wrote:
(And ultimately that 10 or 12 bits does place a
maximum on the V*H
resolution of the drawn image.)
I hope you understand that a line drawn from one point to another
point does not form discrete points. It will be a straight line, not a
series of discrete pixels along that straight line. On Tue,
8 Feb 2011, Brent Hilpert wrote:
>> >>>> For that matter, how big are the pixels?
> >>> There aren't any pixels.
>>
>> I know what you mean here, so not to argue your point about the
>> analog process in the system under discussion, but I would like
to
>> add an historical footnote: even analog raster-scan systems were
>> characterised in terms of "picture elements" going back to the
very
>> early days of TV.
That's exactly the point: those Tektronix terminals/computers are
not
raster-scan systems, you draw a line from here
to there. The only
"limitation" is the addressing range for the start and end point
(either 10 or 12 bits). Speaking of the printer, AFAIK it's the
printer that determines the scanning speed and the resolution of
the
> rasterization process. You will not the the "traditional" moiree
pattern if you were to draw
lines in a spread from a certain point, as you would on a pixel based
display.
The 12 bit resolution sets a limit to where you can place the beam,
but on a line between points, it can be at coordinates that cannot be
expressed in 12 bit coordinates.
As stated in another message, I am well aware of how vector displays
work, as well as the implications of that as you state above.