jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) (08/04/88)
Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. The solution is to get a monitor with long persistence phosphors. Seems to me I can get such a monitor for about $550 or at least $900. Why $900, well flicker fixer plus monitor is about $900. What's wrong with the above arguement? -- ________________________________________ This space would have been | Mike Davis LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK | ihnp4!ihlpm!jmdavis had I not written in it. |_________________________
suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) (08/04/88)
In article <2191@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: >Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this >a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor >decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. Doesn't a flicker fixer de-interlace? /ken Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Kermit Distribution SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET Columbia University Center for ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh Computing Activities 612 West 115th Street New York, NY 10025
perley@mazda.steinmetz (Donald P Perley) (08/04/88)
In article <2191@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: >Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this >a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor >decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. The solution >is to get a monitor with long persistence phosphors. Seems to me I can >get such a monitor for about $550 or at least $900. Why $900, well >flicker fixer plus monitor is about $900. > >What's wrong with the above arguement? If your phosphor persistence is too long, it will screw up animation. Moving objects will leave little "comet tails" behind them. I think it would be difficult to get a phosphor that stays lit up for 1/30 sec. and then cuts out just in time for the next frame. -don perley
ari@cunixc.columbia.edu (Ari Shamash) (08/05/88)
In article <877@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: >In article <2191@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: >>Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this >>a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor >>decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. > > >Doesn't a flicker fixer de-interlace? > >/ken According to the recent issue of AmigaWorld, flicker fixer does more than remove the flicker.. It solidifies the entire Amiga display. For example, in the 640x200 mode, only every other line is displayed (in other words, no interlace) So every other other line is black. Flicker fixer fills in these gaps, making the display look sharper and more solid.. That's what I read, anyway. I don't have one, so I wouldn't know. Ari -- BITNET: ashus@cuvmb.bitnet Let's go Ari Shamash ARPANET: ari@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu METS! 801 Watson, 612 W115th St. USENET: ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!ari New York, NY 10025 PHONE: (212) 280-8555 Ya know, all science, no philosophy..-Real Genius
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (08/05/88)
jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: > >Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this >a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor >decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. The solution >is to get a monitor with long persistence phosphors. Seems to me I can >get such a monitor for about $550 or at least $900. Why $900, well >flicker fixer plus monitor is about $900. > >What's wrong with the above arguement? > It's all a matter of what you want to do. With a long persistance monitor you will get smearing durring amimation. Our 3D glasses will not work with either the FlickerFixer or Long Perstistance monitors. As I see it the problem is that the Amiga's refresh rate is too slow. The reasons for this are obvious; We live in a 60hz country. In Europe things are even worse with PAL, which runs at only 50hz (or is it 48?). The FlickerFixer is a half-azzed attempt to double buffer the display, which I think is junk. But I can understand their reasoning. It does elimate the flicker on interlaced images, and uses (I assume) only about 1/3rd the memory it would have taken to do it right. And of course, it works with a multi-sync monitor at 76hz. But I really don't like the way objects in motion split, and especially the inablity to by-pass the thing. What I think C= should do is support a 76hz mode. This would mean that with a multi-sync monitor you would acchieve a 38hz flicker rate between the short and long frames of interlaced images, which I doubt would be perceptable in any but the worst of circumstances. Of course this would push the already tight bandwidth a bit more, so it would have to be studied, perhaps only as an option for "Turbo" Amigas. Anyway, I'd like to see some kind of display system that I can work with. Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (J. Dow) (08/06/88)
In article <11737@steinmetz.ge.com> perley@mazda.steinmetz.ge.com (Donald P Perley) writes: >In article <2191@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: > > >>Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this >>a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor >>decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. The solution >>is to get a monitor with long persistence phosphors. Seems to me I can >>get such a monitor for about $550 or at least $900. Why $900, well >>flicker fixer plus monitor is about $900. >> >>What's wrong with the above arguement? > >If your phosphor persistence is too long, it will screw up animation. >Moving objects will leave little "comet tails" behind them. I think >it would be difficult to get a phosphor that stays lit up for 1/30 sec. >and then cuts out just in time for the next frame. > > > >-don perley Don is exactly correct. With long persistance you can kiss of animations. And even such simple things as scrolling becomes a pain in the ... er <cough> eyeballs. I have a FlickerFixer coupled to a Zenith FTM. Hooboy do that work NICELY. Animations are great. Games play nicely (such few as I play...) Text scrolls nicely. All those good things. And the blooming screen is FLAT! I highly recommend the FlickerFixer. And if you can afford the rather pricey FTM that is perhaps the best you can do. I cna sit back three feet or more and easily read 132 column text fonts. (Needless to say I often set Armando up with that configuration. (Armando == my B2000) If you can afford the FF plus monitor combination (new monitor is necessary) don't pass go - get it. -- Sometimes a bird in the hand leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it were best it remain there in the bush with the other one. {@_@} jdow@bix (where else?) Sometimes the dragon wins. Sometimes jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM the knight. Does the fair maiden ever {backbone}!gryphon!jdow win? Surely both the knight and dragon stink. Maybe the maiden should suicide? Better yet - she should get an Amiga and quit playing with dragons and knights.
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (J. Dow) (08/06/88)
In article <877@cunixc.columbia.edu> suh@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) writes: >In article <2191@ihlpm.ATT.COM> jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) writes: >>Having priced flicker fixers at $550 I am wondering, "Isn't this >>a bit silly?" Reason being that the cause of flicker is the phosphor >>decaying before the scan comes around again to refresh it. > > >Doesn't a flicker fixer de-interlace? Eyup - it do. It raises the refresh rate for the formerly interlaced screen to 60Hz which materially (but not entirely) reduces the flicker. (I say that because with my peripheral vision (even at my age) I can detect flourescent light flicker. I'm so used to it I can live with it though.) > >/ken >Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Kermit Distribution SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET >Columbia University Center for ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh > Computing Activities >612 West 115th Street >New York, NY 10025 > > -- Sometimes a bird in the hand leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it were best it remain there in the bush with the other one. {@_@} jdow@bix (where else?) Sometimes the dragon wins. Sometimes jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM the knight. Does the fair maiden ever {backbone}!gryphon!jdow win? Surely both the knight and dragon stink. Maybe the maiden should suicide? Better yet - she should get an Amiga and quit playing with dragons and knights.
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (08/07/88)
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) wrote:
>But I really don't like the way objects in motion split
This is crap, Wade. The artifact you're seeing (I assume you've
actually LOOKED at a flickerFixer) has nothing to do with fF, it's the
Amiga. Put your stock Amiga with 1080 monitor in interlace mode
and it does the same thing. You might not notice it because of all
the flickering, but it's there. All flickerFixer does is stop the
display from flickering, and now you can notice the "motion split."
Think of it like playing a scratched LP through a close-and-play toy
vs playing it through a state-of-the-art sound system. The scratches
will show up a lot better on the latter, since it is so faithful in
reproducing what's there.
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page
"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from
such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. GutekunstChad_The-Walrus_Netzer@cup.portal.com (08/08/88)
In a previous article, <Bob Page> blunders... er, writes:
)haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) wrote:
)>But I really don't like the way objects in motion split
)
)This is crap, Wade. The artifact you're seeing (I assume you've
)actually LOOKED at a flickerFixer) has nothing to do with fF, it's the
)Amiga. Put your stock Amiga with 1080 monitor in interlace mode
)and it does the same thing. You might not notice it because of all
)the flickering, but it's there. All flickerFixer does is stop the
)display from flickering, and now you can notice the "motion split."
I'm sory to say that this is WRONG, Bob. What the Flicker Fixer does
is buffer the last frame, and then displays that frame one more time, so that
the scan lines that would have faded by 1/30th of a second, are shown again.
The magical result is no flicker. This make static images look GREAT
(ESPECIALLY on a Zenith Flat Screen Monitor, by the way). However, since that
last frame is displayed once more, if the current frame is significantly
different from the last frame, you will see "lines" left over where the object
was. A simple way to demonstrate this is to move the mouse pointer
semi-rapidly on the screen. You will clearly see those left over lines... It
is not caused by the monitor, or in the way your eye/brain interprets the
interlace (as you state), but is a result of something which otherwise would
have faded being re-displayed...
I suggest YOU go take another good look at the Flicker Fixer, before
you call anyone else's words (namely Wade's) "crap"... I myself have seen the
Flicker Fixer numerous times, on at least three different brands and models,
and have always seen the same effect. I also listened when the FF's operating
principals were discussed...
Anyway, this message is NOT meant to be a bad review for the Flicker
Fixer... It does a GREAT job of what it is SUPPOED to do, which is provide
flicker free output (which makes CAD, desktop publishing, etc. MUCH more
tolerable). But if you want to do a lot of animation, you might not like
it... or if you do both, all it takes is a cable move, or a switch to go
between the two modes (flicker <--> Flicker Fixer).
PS. In case your wondering, I use interlace all the time, with just a
standard 1080. I just pick the right color set, and it doesn't bother me one
bit...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chad 'The_Bloodshot' Netzer -> AmigaManiac++
"Carpenters use a Crowbar; Drivers use a Rollbar;Hackers just need a Foobar."jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (08/09/88)
In article <7977@cup.portal.com> Chad_The-Walrus_Netzer@cup.portal.com writes: >In a previous article, <Bob Page> blunders... er, writes: >)haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) wrote: >)>But I really don't like the way objects in motion split > I'm sory to say that this is WRONG, Bob. What the Flicker Fixer does >is buffer the last frame, and then displays that frame one more time, so that >the scan lines that would have faded by 1/30th of a second, are shown again. >The magical result is no flicker. This make static images look GREAT >(ESPECIALLY on a Zenith Flat Screen Monitor, by the way). However, since that >last frame is displayed once more, if the current frame is significantly >different from the last frame, you will see "lines" left over where the object >was. A simple way to demonstrate this is to move the mouse pointer >semi-rapidly on the screen. You will clearly see those left over lines... It >is not caused by the monitor, or in the way your eye/brain interprets the >interlace (as you state), but is a result of something which otherwise would >have faded being re-displayed... Sort of. FF takes video that consists of SF1,LF1,SF2,LF2,... (short field/long field), and displays it as (SF1/LF1),(SF2/LF1),(SF2/LF2), (SF3/LF2), etc. The reason objects break up when moving more than 1 pixel per field (1/60sec) is that between sf1 and lf1 the object has moved. Normally your vision integrates this as a solid object moving, even though you only see every other line at any 1 time. When they are displayed at the same time (and therefor same luminance) it is obvious that every other line is offset. This is why digital TV people who do scan-doubling do interpolation to make this less obvious (I think). It's still nice to have de-interlaced video. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup