On 02/10/11 21:38, Brent Hilpert<hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
On 2011 Feb 9, at 2:17 AM, Christian Corti wrote:
> 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.
(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.
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.
Johnny