dmurdoch@watstat.uwaterloo.ca (Duncan Murdoch) (08/01/90)
In article <1990Jul31.082455.9624@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) writes: > >I would recommend choosing a monitor that supports a particular resolution when >NOT interlaced. I believe, for example, that the nec 3d is interlaced. Strictly speaking, it's the video card that decides whether the image will be interlaced or not. However, there's a certain upper limit to the resolution achievable on a given monitor in non-interlaced mode, and usually a higher limit if interlacing is allowed. The NEC 3D is perfectly capable of 800x600 non-interlaced, and has a maximum rating of 960x720 (I think) non-interlaced. It handles 1024x768 fine in interlaced mode, and is reportedly able to handle it non-interlaced too: I don't know, because my ATI VGA Wonder card only provides the interlaced mode. Has anyone else tried non-interlaced 1024x768 on a 3D? Duncan Murdoch
hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton) (08/02/90)
In article <1990Aug1.130405.25625@maytag.waterloo.edu> dmurdoch@watstat.uwaterloo.ca (Duncan Murdoch) writes: >In article <1990Jul31.082455.9624@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) writes: >> >>I would recommend choosing a monitor that supports a particular resolution when >>NOT interlaced. I believe, for example, that the nec 3d is interlaced. > >Strictly speaking, it's the video card that decides whether the image will be >interlaced or not. However, there's a certain upper limit to the resolution >achievable on a given monitor in non-interlaced mode, and usually a higher limit >if interlacing is allowed. The NEC 3D is perfectly capable of 800x600 >non-interlaced, and has a maximum rating of 960x720 (I think) non-interlaced. >It handles 1024x768 fine in interlaced mode, and is reportedly able to >handle it non-interlaced too: I don't know, because my ATI VGA Wonder card >only provides the interlaced mode. > >Has anyone else tried non-interlaced 1024x768 on a 3D? > >Duncan Murdoch The 3D is not capable of 1024x768 non-interlaced according to the NEC specs, but there are those who have been able to get an occasional one to run at this resolution non-interlaced. As with most hardware, running beyond the specs probably shortens the useful life of the item. If you really want 1024x768 non-interlaced, the Seiko 1450, Sony 1304, and one by Panasonic (#?) will do this fine, without being pushed. On the other hand, 1024x768 on a 14" screen is tinytexttime; you probably want a 16" monitor anyway. Or, I should say "one" would want 16" monitor, since this not to the original poster. And of course, you have to have *both* the monitor and graphic adapter capable of non-interlaced. P.S. At present, I prefer the 800x600x256 non-interlaced mode.