From: danaf@bray1b.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.)
Subject: Re: Interlace video (Was Re: PC (OS/2) / Amiga debate)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:07:13 GMT

In article <187t3iINNk58@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>danaf@aix.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.) writes:
>>In his last message, Charles knocks the Amiga for having an interlaced video
>>display. No, Charles, this is NOT a sign of poor quality. First off, many 
>>real-world PC displays are interlaced. Just because YOURS isn't doesn't mean
>
>I think you're wrong on that one.  Standard VGA use 31.5 KHz horizontal
>syncing frequency and 60 Hz vertical non-interlaced refresh.  And I don't
>think EGA and CGA is interlaced either.

I said DISPLAYS, which was not the best choice of words. I should have used
a word like "screens" or "monitors"... I meant interlaced monitors.

>But let's face it -- interlaced video is bad for the eyes, the fact that it
>facilitates video work is irrelevant.

NOT TRUE! The Amiga is a machine targeted primarily toward the video market. 
The fact that it has an interlaced display shows that focus. The display is
certainly not "irrelevant"

>>Commodore included interlacing on their display simply indicates the different
>>focus of the Amiga line - toward video. ALL vieo displays, including the one on
>>every TV in your house, is interlaced. There's nothing WRONG with interlacing, 
>
>No, there's nothing wrong with a interlaced display -- unless you have to
>look at it in close range for long periods of time, then there's a problem.

I see no problem. You really do get used to it. I owned an Amiga for over four
years before I bought my flicker-fixer, and had no eye trouble. At one point,
over a summer when I could not find a job, there were days when I would use
the thing 10, 12 hours... up to 8 hours STRAIGHT. I'm still sighted.  9)

>
>>and it is NOT a "low-end" alternative to a steady display. It has MANY, MANY
>>applications in the real world, at levels the IBM machines cannot touch. 
>
>Yes, the video aspect, but how many use their computers for video?

Uhm... in the Amiga community? 10-20% professionally/semiprofessionally, and
about 30-40% "fool around". (Okay, okay... I just made up those numbers. But
we'll ask Dave Haynie, someone who should have the market research to prove it.
Dave? How close was I? I may have even UNDERESTIMATED.)

>Believe me, the flicke4qring is very noticable, I've looked at an interlaced
>PAL display and I will go blind if I have to look at it for long periods of
>time.

AHA! Well, that's half of the problem, then. PAL video has its own flicker,
especially when shoved onto an NTSC screen. Anytime I run my palbooter, I
go half-crazy from that damn flashing screen. If you are looking at a PAL
screen, you have a better chance of going blind from the PAL than from the
interlacing!

>Idealy, interlaced video mode should only be used when doing video work,
>all other times it'll just put unnecessary strains on the eyes.

So, then you jump down a video mode! What's the big deal? It's not like every
display on the Amiga is interlaced. We get up to 724x482 (?) non-interlaced, 
which is fine for 90% of the applications people want to run. 

I am...
   -Frank Dana, known (718)-(212)-(516) over as Amiuser/Doc Ami!