I definitely understand you very well, and I agree.
Please allow me to restate my intent: With enough angular resolution (our eyes have limits), and enough brightness and refresh rate, we can maybe get close to what the perception of watching television once was.
And to clarify: I don't propose completely chasing the beam with OLED, but instead emulation of the CRT that includes the appearance of interlaced video (which itself can be completely full of fields of uncorrelated as-it-happens scans of the continuously-changing reality in front of the analog camera that captured it), and the scan lines that resulted, and the persistence and softness that allowed it to be perceived as well as it once was.
In this way, panning in an unmodified Mr Rogers video works with a [future] modern display, sports games and rocket launches are perceived largely as they were instead of a series of frames, and so on. This process doesn't have to be perfect; it just needs to be close enough that it is looks the ~same (largely no better, nor any worse) as it once did.
My completely hypothetical method may differ rather drastically in approach from what you wish to accomplish, and that difference is something that I think is perfectly OK.
These approaches aren't exclusive of eachother. There can be more than one.
And it seems that both of our approaches rely on the rote preservation of existing (interlaced, analog, real-time!) video, for once that information is discarded in favor of something that seems good today, future improvements (whether in display technology or in deinterlacing/scaler technology, or both) for any particular video become largely impossible.
In order to reach either desired result, we really need the interlaced analog source (as close as possible), and not the dodgy transfers that are so common today.
Please allow me to restate my intent: With enough angular resolution (our eyes have limits), and enough brightness and refresh rate, we can maybe get close to what the perception of watching television once was.
And to clarify: I don't propose completely chasing the beam with OLED, but instead emulation of the CRT that includes the appearance of interlaced video (which itself can be completely full of fields of uncorrelated as-it-happens scans of the continuously-changing reality in front of the analog camera that captured it), and the scan lines that resulted, and the persistence and softness that allowed it to be perceived as well as it once was.
In this way, panning in an unmodified Mr Rogers video works with a [future] modern display, sports games and rocket launches are perceived largely as they were instead of a series of frames, and so on. This process doesn't have to be perfect; it just needs to be close enough that it is looks the ~same (largely no better, nor any worse) as it once did.
My completely hypothetical method may differ rather drastically in approach from what you wish to accomplish, and that difference is something that I think is perfectly OK.
These approaches aren't exclusive of eachother. There can be more than one.
And it seems that both of our approaches rely on the rote preservation of existing (interlaced, analog, real-time!) video, for once that information is discarded in favor of something that seems good today, future improvements (whether in display technology or in deinterlacing/scaler technology, or both) for any particular video become largely impossible.
In order to reach either desired result, we really need the interlaced analog source (as close as possible), and not the dodgy transfers that are so common today.