In short, it's wrong. You can model an image as an array of point samples - however these are not "pixels".
This is, for LCDs, usually an array of little squares... sort of (probably more accurately described as an array of little rectangles of different color). Things get more complicated when you start talking about less traditional subpixel arrangements like PenTile, or the behavior of old CRTs (where you don't necessarily have fully discrete pixels at all).
I wonder if there have been any experiments constructing displays with optical filters to provide better reconstruction. I guess the visual analogue would be image upscaling, and in that sense the reconstruction what LCDs etc provide would be comparable to nearest neighbor scaling (which generally sucks)
But for graphics, why should this be the goal? Perhaps a better goal is high contrast of edges, and for this the box filter is one of the very best. An additional advantage of the box filter is that it has only positive support, so there's no clipping beyond white and black. This is especially helpful when rendering text.
And honestly I believe that those huge sinc-approximating reconstruction filters are overly fetishized even in the audio space. The main reason they sound "nearly perfect" is that the cutoff is safely outside the audible range. Try filtering a perfect slow sawtooth through a brick wall with a cutoff in the audio range, say 8kHz. It sounds like a very audible "ping" at that frequency, with pre-echo at that because of the symmetry of sinc.
Afaik this would come up in text rendering where the glyphs and strokes inevitably will not align with the pixel grid, but you would know better about that.
Digital audio sampling rates and resolution are far higher than the limits of perception, so there's sufficient resolution to shift by eg. half a wavelength for noise cancelling or by fractions of a wavelength for beamforming (at least, if you use the highest sample rates and resolution supported by your equipment, rather than the CD audio standard default settings).
The spatial resolution of computer graphics does not yet have such comfortable headroom. In the best cases, they've caught up to normal human visual acuity but usually not vernier acuity. Once displays outpace eyeballs to the same extent that soundcards outpace ears, it will be possible to shift an image by 1mm and have it remain as sharp-looking as the original—because a sharp edge smeared across several pixels will still be sharp enough to look "perfectly sharp" to a human.
But it was in context of old CRT and Sony Trinitron monitors! I was wondering what it'd say about LCD screens but the memo is from 1995, and the first standalone LCDs only appeared in the mid-1990s and were expensive [1].
What it says about CRT electron beams no longer apply, but I'm guessing this still does:
> The value of a pixel is converted, for each primary color, to a voltage level. This stepped voltage is passed through electronics which, by its very nature, rounds off the edges of the level steps
> Your eye then integrates the light pattern from a group of triads into a color
> There are, as usual in imaging, overlapping shapes that serve as natural reconstruction filters
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_monitor#Liquid_crysta...
There are other ways to do it, but they generally have a lot in common.