dbscoop2@bwdlh417.BNR.CA (Alun Fryer) (04/05/91)
I am currently using the display enhancer with a "Super-VGA" monitor
(you know the 800x600 non-interlaced, and 1024x768 interlaced ones), with no
problems. The only thing I don't like is the fact that my monitor doesn't
have a horizontal width adjustment so I have about 1/2" of black
nothingness on either side of the image. Of course to compensate for
this I put my workbench screen into 700pixel wide overscan and it looks
really pretty. The only problem you will encounter is if you try to use
the ECS "Super-hires" mode (1280x200/400). The card doen't sample the
pixels fast enough to get 1280 on one scan line, so it will only sample
every second on (giving you the 640-wide resolution). The manual says
to put the card into bypass mode for this, which of course the VGA
monitor cannot handle. Another small complaint I have about the card is
that it makes lo-res look really crappy. You can see each pixel with
perfect clarity (no scanlines and cheaply made monitor to hide it). I
really cannot stand to look at a non-interlaced workbench screen anymore
(WB 2.0 looks pretty lousy in non-interlace anyway :^) ).
The only trouble you may have with a VGA (not Super-VGA) monitor is if
you switch to PAL (w/ [Super | Fatter | Obese | Fatter | Pregnant | Huge
| really-neat-now-I-have-a-whole-meg-of-chip-RAM] Agnus), it may not
work. I'm not sure about this but I think the frequency is a little
different for PAL, and a standard VGA monitor may not like this
(Super-VGA monitors will adjust
within a limited range... mine goes from 28-33KHz I think).
- Alun Fryer
"And now for something completely different... A man with a tape
recorder up his nose..." (French National Anthem follows)
- John Cleese - Monty Python's Flying Circusguy@ns.network.com (Guy D'Andrea) (04/06/91)
In article <6382@bwdls58.bnr.ca> dbscoop2@bwdlh417.BNR.CA (Alun Fryer) writes: > >... Another small complaint I have about the card is >that it makes lo-res look really crappy. You can see each pixel with >perfect clarity (no scanlines and cheaply made monitor to hide it). I >really cannot stand to look at a non-interlaced workbench screen anymore >(WB 2.0 looks pretty lousy in non-interlace anyway :^) ). > - Alun Fryer Yes, I have noticed the same thing. Actually all modes look worse to me. Now that I can see every pixel, they don't all blend together like they did before - but what I'm seeing IS CLEARER! So what-the-hay, it just makes me more critial of the pix I do from DigiView... ;-) -- Guy Dandrea, Network Systems Corp. // guy@nsco.network.com #129.191.1.1 \\ // 7600 Boone Ave No, Mpls. MN 55428 \X/ 1-800-328-9108 Fax:(612)424-1736 "Me and my Amiga...anything is possible?"
nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca (Norman Heu) (04/06/91)
In article <6382@bwdls58.bnr.ca> dbscoop2@bwdlh417.BNR.CA (Alun Fryer) writes: > > [stuff about using a display enhancer] > >Another small complaint I have about the card is >that it makes lo-res look really crappy. You can see each pixel with >perfect clarity (no scanlines and cheaply made monitor to hide it). There's a program available called "setlace" which puts those lo-res screens into interlace by displaying each scanline twice to fill in the gaps. Those lo-res screens end up looking much sharper! -Norm > - Alun Fryer > -- // Norman Heu \X/ nheu@heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!heuvax.wimsey.bc.ca!nheu