Talk:Monochrome monitor

message: The concept of a "greenscreen" often refers to any monochrome, usually high-persistance CRT display - I've heard "greenscreen" used by different people in different countries about amber VT220s and even blue-white VT05s. Perhaps we should add a sentence to the Green screen article mentioning other colours, and redirect Amber screen there? 
I also apologize for any mistakes I may have made in following protocol on this. I am not a very seasoned wikipedian. -- toresbe 10:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The concept of a "greenscreen"

message: The article says:
"Some green screen and amber screen displays were furnished with a particularly full/intense phosphor coating, making the characters very clear and sharply defined (thus easy to read), but generating a somewhat disturbing afterglow-effect [...] The 5151, amongst others, had brightness and contrast controls to allow the user to set their own compromise."
If the brightness was due to the qualities of the phosphor coating, then I don't see how it could be adjusted by the user. Instead, I suspect the brightness was determined by the intensity of the electrons emitted by the catode, which would be adjustable. But I am no expert in this area so I leave it for someone else to change the article.
--220.217.68.120 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphor coating vs. brightness 

message: The same paragraph of the article also seems to contrast sharply defined with pixelated. I don't see how characters that are sharply defined could be less pixelated. On the contrary, only a blurred character would be less pixelated.
--220.217.68.120 07:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharply defined vs. pixelated 

message: * There ought to be a disambiguation between green screen (this) and greenscreen (special effects), which is a more common usage of the term.  --Drtillberg 03:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation: Greenscreen 

message: I suggest merging green-screen display into monochrome monitor.
There is already a bunch of word-for-word overlap between the two articles.
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: ... of the Monochrome monitor in the top is photoshoped to be 'infinite', and should  be reverted?
Additionally the web-browser has an open tab with "Zoo sex tube"... 139.164.243.18 (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo 

message: I would like to note that the tidbit about "ghosting" was duplicated in both the "Clarity" section and the "Screen burn" section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.226.31 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate content 

message: What about monochrome LC-Displays as found on old laptops, gameboys etc?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.118.2 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monochrome LC-Displays? 

message: ‘each pixel is made up of three phosphor dots (one red, one blue, one green) separated by a mask’
This is false. Neither the phosphor dots, nor any arbitrary grouping of them, are pixels nor does the monitor have any way to address any one specifically. Some colour CRTs don't even use phosphor dots but rather continuous lines.
My old CRT used a honeycomb pattern, which was common for cheap CRTs at the time. There are many arbitrary ways to split the pattern into groups of three dots, none of which would be a pixel. At low resolution a pixel would contain many dots and the portion of the pattern would be different for each pixel. At very low resolutions it would double the scan lines. At its maximum resolution there actually weren't enough phosphor dots to go around so some pixels would for example not contain a blue dot at all. Whether a particular pixel would contain a blue dot was impossible to tell in advance and over the course of a day the image would shift very slightly over the pattern anyway.
So in short, phosphor dots and pixels are unrelated to each other and should probably not even appear in the same sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error 

message: The article is written as though all monitors use CRT technology. I've re-titled a section and made a brief reference to alternative technologies, but there really should be a discussion of at least plasma technology and preferably others. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all monochrome monitors use CRT technology