riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) (03/08/91)
Just in case people following this discussion about the flicker problem with interlaced monitors think that all users of them are suffering, let me say that I use 2 such, including the machine that I'm using right now, and there is absolutely no flicker at all. They are both IBM 8514 monitors, one of them the color monitor and the other the large monochrome. Furthermore I know 3 other people that use them, and they do not notice any flicker either. One of the reasons I think, is that these monitors have a slowly reacting phosphorus that minimizes the flicker. The other may be that flicker is noticeable to some people and not to others, at least that was mentioned recently in an article in PC Magazine (I think it was PCMag..). Carl Riehm.
Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) (03/13/91)
> riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca writes: > > Msg-ID: <27D66A39.5235@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> > Posted: 7 Mar 91 16:28:41 GMT > > Org. : McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada > Person: Carl Riehm > > Just in case people following this discussion about the flicker problem with > interlaced monitors think that all users of them are suffering, let me > say that I use 2 such, including the machine that I'm using right now, and > there is absolutely no flicker at all. They are both IBM 8514 monitors, one > of them the color monitor and the other the large monochrome. Furthermore > I know 3 other people that use them, and they do not notice any flicker > either. One of the reasons I think, is that these monitors have a slowly > reacting phosphorus that minimizes the flicker. The other may be that > flicker > is noticeable to some people and not to others, at least that was mentioned > recently in an article in PC Magazine (I think it was PCMag..). > Carl Riehm. Seiko monitors such as the CM-1440 and CM-1450 also use a longer persistance phosphor. In 1024x768 interlaced there is virtually no flicker (perhaps a slight quiver on single pixel width horizontal lines if you have the right colors and look closely). . -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada a752@mindlink.UUCP
cjw4494@cec1.wustl.edu (Mr. White (cec cons)) (03/14/91)
I've been following the discussion of the $99.00 deal for Actor 3.0 and I
am considering making the purchase. However, I have a few questions:
1. I read a review in PC Magazine where it was stated (don't quote me) that
a short program (15 or so lines) compiled to an extremely large exe file.
By extremely large I mean 300K or something (as far as I can remember).
Is this true?
2. Can Windows 3.0 programming be done with Actor 3.0 ONLY? Do I need SDK,
Turbo C++, Microsoft C, etc?
3. My system is a Gateway 2000 386sx with 2MB running at 16 Mhz. Will
developement be slow? Anything but a snails pace I think I could live
with.
Any response would be greatly appreciated. Post or send me e-mail direct.
Note: any info on Actor 3.0 is welcomed.
Christopher White
e-mail: cjw4494@cec2.wustl.edu
Washington University Undergrad
ps: If I decide to get it, how do I? Address? Phone?cjw4494@cec1.wustl.edu (Mr. White (cec cons)) (03/14/91)
In a recent edition of PC Magazine, they reviewed several 3270 terminal emulators that take full advantage of using windows. Is there anything of the like for emulation a vt220? Any emulators that directly support the KEA200 PowerStation keyboard? Thanks in advance, Christopher White e-mail: cjw4494@cec2.wustl.edu Washington University Undergrad
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/14/91)
In article <27D66A39.5235@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >Just in case people following this discussion about the flicker problem with >interlaced monitors think that all users of them are suffering, let me >say that I use 2 such, including the machine that I'm using right now, and >there is absolutely no flicker at all. They are both IBM 8514 monitors, one >of them the color monitor and the other the large monochrome. Furthermore >I know 3 other people that use them, and they do not notice any flicker >either. Great, now bring up Control Panel and select WEAVE.BMP for your desktop; then select a dithered color for your title bar; now save that, bring up a GIF image in Paint Shop and dither it for a Mac. Stand back and have a nice day! If none of THOSE things flicker, you're safe. > One of the reasons I think, is that these monitors have a slowly >reacting phosphorus that minimizes the flicker. That helps a lot, but carries a cost. Things that NEED to change quickly look strange with slow persistence phosphors. This is how you get the "mouse tail" effect, like running Windows on an LCD laptop... > The other may be that flicker >is noticeable to some people and not to others, at least that was mentioned >recently in an article in PC Magazine (I think it was PCMag..). >Carl Riehm. Good old PC magazine... home of the half baked theory. :-) I'll wager that given the same screen and image, nearly everyone notices interlace to the same degree.
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/15/91)
>> > The other may be that flicker >> >is noticeable to some people and not to others, at least that was mentioned >> >recently in an article in PC Magazine (I think it was PCMag..). >> >> Good old PC magazine... home of the half baked theory. :-) I'll wager >> that given the same screen and image, nearly everyone notices interlace >> to the same degree. > >I wouldn't endorse everything that's said in PC Magazine, but I >think the notion that different people react differently to screen >interlace probably has some truth in it. Some truth, yes. If there weren't SOME truth, it wouldn't qualify as a really _half baked_ theory. :-) No doubt there is some individual variation in both the threshhold at which people notice flicker, AND the threshhold at which they experience noticed flicker as annoying. There is individual variation in everything else, so why not in those things. Nevertheless the original statement was that "flicker is noticeable to some people and not to others," and that's a very different proposition. I will set up my Boca SVGA+ in 45Hz interlaced 1024x768 mode on the NEC Multisync 4D with its fast phosphor; I will configure Windows with WEAVE.BMP (tiled) as the desktop wallpaper, and a dithered monochrome Mac picture popped up in a window. Now you tell me you don't notice the flicker! Whether you HATE it or not is another thing. Whether you even know to LOOK for it is yet another thing! (I'm sure some people simply have no idea that this isn't how computer screens _always_ look.) Anyway, we can definitely conclude that you should look at the actual combination of video adapter, monitor, lighting conditions, and screen contents that you'll be using day-to-day before deciding whether an interlaced monitor is acceptable.
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (03/15/91)
In article <70457004@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > In article <27D66A39.5235@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: > > The other may be that flicker > >is noticeable to some people and not to others, at least that was mentioned > >recently in an article in PC Magazine (I think it was PCMag..). > >Carl Riehm. > > Good old PC magazine... home of the half baked theory. :-) I'll wager > that given the same screen and image, nearly everyone notices interlace > to the same degree. I wouldn't endorse everything that's said in PC Magazine, but I think the notion that different people react differently to screen interlace probably has some truth in it. A number of years ago when I worked with some medical imaging hardware, I made the comment that some manufacturer's hardware had more of a visible flicker problem than others, and that I could see the flicker with a couple of the monitors even when I looked directly at the screen (the cones in the center of the human visual field have a longer response time than the rods at the edges and therefore flicker is less noticeable when you look directly at the monitor than if you look somewhat away from it). Turned out I was about the only one in the lab who could see the flicker on those monitors unless the others looked at the monitors "out of the corners of their eyes" when they could see it too. We didn't attempt to do a controlled study, but I suspect that there is a significant difference between individuals either in basic visual perception or in the psychological reaction to the stimulus. It doesn't particularly matter which as far as the reaction goes - it bothered some people much more than others. It will also matter what kind of lighting is going to be around the monitor - florescent lighting is going to be worse because it also has a "flicker" that will resonate with the flicker in the screen to make the observed flicker much greater. It's a good idea to see the monitor in action in something close to its ultimate environment to see what it will look like to _you_. Bruce C. Wright
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar15.023840.28733@rti.rti.org> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: > >We didn't attempt to do a controlled study, but I suspect that >there is a significant difference between individuals either in >basic visual perception or in the psychological reaction to the >stimulus. It doesn't particularly matter which as far as the >reaction goes - it bothered some people much more than others. > That may be true. Otherwise I find it hard to explain the UTTERLY EXCRABLE television format used in Europe. When in Europe I have literally been unable to watch television - it flickers so horribly that I get a terrible headache. Doug McDonald
kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (03/16/91)
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: >A number of years ago when I worked with some medical imaging >hardware, I made the comment that some manufacturer's hardware >had more of a visible flicker problem than others, and that I >could see the flicker with a couple of the monitors even when >I looked directly at the screen (the cones in the center of the >Turned out I was about the only one in the lab who could see the >flicker on those monitors unless the others looked at the monitors >"out of the corners of their eyes" when they could see it too. Just out of information, I did do a controlled study of several monitors and video cardw -- BUT, I did it for personal reasons and only had a few other people involved. I suffer from a reasonably rare eye disease that creates problems with my perception of both horizontal and vertical edges. This includes typefaces and especially grpahics that have edges in hte vertical and horizontal range. Almost all monitors have flicker to me because of my sensitivity to the edges of all the various video tests. Right now I'm running a 21" Taxan with a scan rate up around 78kHz (I hope I remembered that right) and a video card that can put out a signal for non-interlaced 1280x1024 by 256. I can still see flicker and refresh. What I can't see is the edges of all these wonderful windows on my screen so I end up clicking on the wrong thing all the time. I doubt if there are many netters that can still see flicker on something equivalent to what I'm using. Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
osmoviita@cc.helsinki.fi (03/17/91)
In article <1540@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crock er) writes: > > Almost all monitors have flicker to me because of my sensitivity to the > edges of all the various video tests. > > Right now I'm running a 21" Taxan with a scan rate up around 78kHz (I > hope I remembered that right) and a video card that can put out a > signal for non-interlaced 1280x1024 by 256. I can still see flicker > and refresh. What I can't see is the edges of all these wonderful > windows on my screen so I end up clicking on the wrong thing all the > time. I doubt if there are many netters that can still see flicker on > something equivalent to what I'm using. > Highest reported seen flicker frequency is about 106 Hz, and my fried saw up to 104 Hz. It shown that brain cells of apes react up to 120 Hz flicker. So if you want to be sure to avoid flicker buy Barco Calibrator monitor which syncs up to 120 Hz or Ikegami's one which syncs up to 150 Hz. (Barco is about best quality available and not very cheap). More difficult is to find a graphics card which puts images out at those rates. Then if You show images at 120 Hz and AC frequency is 60 Hz there should not bee visible interference with rooms lights. But of course You get lower resolution. Non-interlaced. In workstations there is often a 120 Hz stereo mode. But it is interlaced. So although it is very stable for periferic seeing where flicker is most easily seen there is a small flicker between line pairs where You focuse. I rated 120 Hz interlaced 1280x1024 at 19" tube better than 60 Hz non-interlaced. That was based only on a short inspection, I don' know how it would disturb after hours. Kari Osmoviita