Bob Myers wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm... Can't say that I've ever heard of that. Doesn't make a lot of
>> sense, really - if the performance "sucks" beyond a certain
>> scan-angle, why have phosphor there? I suppose choice is nice...
>
>Because of the way the phosphor is deposited. It's
>basically poured into the faceplate glass as a slurry,
>over a photoresist mask which is produced by using the
>shadow mask or aperture grille as an exposure mask.
>This results in phosphor being deposited well up the sides
>of the glass,

Well, when I wrote "why have phosphor there", I meant "why have
phosphor and shadow mask" there, or, phrased another way, why have
usable display area there (if one really ought not use it).

I suppose it's sensible to allow the choice of a maxxed-out display
size, or to sacrifice some size for accuracy... Although not many
would be (or should be) so fussy, IMO...