From: danaf@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.)
Subject: Re: Interlace video (Was Re: PC (OS/2) / Amiga debate)
Reply-To: danaf@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:54:08 GMT

In article <18ccmaINN53p@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
|> mlelstv@speckled.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
|> >nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
|> 
|> >>But let's face it -- interlaced video is bad for the eyes, the fact that it
|> >>facilitates video work is irrelevant.
|> 
|> >Face it, you don't need what interlaced means. You think interlace=flicker,
|> 
|> I don't merely "think" interlace => flicker, my experience tells me so.
|> 
|> >this is not true. The Amiga generates an 25Hz (PAL) or 30HZ (NTSC) framerate
|> >in its interlace mode. _This_ flickers. But the interlace _reduces_ flicker.
|> >If you could see a _non-interlaced_ 25 or 30Hz display you would know that.
|> 
|> WHAT?!?!  Interlacing reduces flicker?  That's a new one to me.  My under-
|> standing is that when the display is interlaced, every other scan line is
|> drawn in one vertical refesh cycle, the other half scan lines are drawn in
|> the next refresh cycle.  So an interlaced display at 80 Hz is actually
|> equal to a non-interlaced display at 40 Hz.  How do you explain that inter-
|> lacing reduces flicker?
|> 
|> No I've never seen a non-interlaced 25 or 30 Hz display, but I have seen a
|> 60 Hz non-interlace display and a 60 Hz interlaced display (both at 800x
|> 600), the answer is obvious to me.
|> 
|> >>>nobody in the PC market had ever heard of interlacing.
|> 
|> >Ha. Many SVGA cards (admitted not the latest) will use interlace for
|> >1024x768.
|> 
|> Watch the attributions, I didn't made that statement.  In fact, I did
|> mention (in lines you deleted) that some SVGA cards only support inter-
|> laced displays at high resolution.

Could we please be a little more careful with the editing, people? *I* made
the statement in question, but, as is indicated by the fact that it begins with a lower-case letter, it is only HALF of my actual sentence. My original text, directed to the moron who feels that all Amiga video is interlaced and all PC video is rock-steady, was something like...

...Just because YOUR display isn't interlaced doesn't mean
nobody in the PC market has ever heard of interlacing.

Could we please cut down on the random editing? This is the SECOND time I`ve
had to send mail / post to correct "creative" editing of my statements. This
is a worldwide discussion on something very important to me, the Amiga computer,
and I don't appreciate being made to sound like a complete moron.

-- 
/////////////////////////[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
(718)             (212)                        (516)             (518)
=======Amiuser============Frank R. Dana, Jr.============Doc Ami=======     
--------My opinions rarely reflect those of any sane person,----------
	   living, dead, or undead... that's gonna CHANGE.
From: kevint@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Kevin Taddeucci)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:10:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Upgrade path from A3000 -> A4000?  Ask at WOC!
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA