andrewsr@u2.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) (05/15/91)
Hello All! I have seen several posts for requests for multisync monitors. I did have the opportunity to personally use both a NEC3d and my Sieko 1450 on my 3000. Both monitors had some trouble in the Productivity (the 3d fared slightly better). Both flickered the blue color a tad and had wierd effects when switching to non-productivity modes and back. However, if you use HiRes Interlaced or SuperHires Interlaced, you get a rock solid screen. There is no flicker in the blue and no wierd effects when swiching modes. I am very satisfied with the resolution Using the overscan program in 2.0, my workbench is 710x480 in HiRes Interlaced, 676x493 in Productivity, and 1420x480 in SuperHires interlaced. The colors on my Sieko are brilliant (it has the same tube as the Sony). The only thing that I have noticed is that some graphic pictures actually look better on a 1080 since the better monitor does not let the colors "bleed" at all. :-) I got the 1450 since it was deinterlaced. But, it is not NTSC and cannot display 15Mhz (the 3d can). However, it has a better dot pitch than the 3d (.25 vs .28) and costs the same. The price I paid for the 1450 is $595. (It lists for > $750). Be sure to shop around. The 3d costs $575. -Rich -- // Rich | "Truth is disputable; not taste." - Hume \X/ Andrews | "180 degrees from sick is still sick" - J. Bradshaw
maxc1503@ucselx.sdsu.edu (David Tse) (05/15/91)
andrewsr@u2.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) writes: >Hello All! >I have seen several posts for requests for multisync monitors. I did >have the opportunity to personally use both a NEC3d and my Sieko 1450 I think you mean Seiko 1450, otherwise my following comment doesn't count. >on my 3000. >Both monitors had some trouble in the Productivity (the 3d fared >slightly better). Both flickered the blue color a tad and had wierd >effects when switching to non-productivity modes and back. >However, if you use HiRes Interlaced or SuperHires Interlaced, you get >a rock solid screen. There is no flicker in the blue and no wierd Are you sure there's no flicker on SuperHires Interlace mode? That's the 1280x400 in NTSC, and is not supported by the Amber chip, Display Enhancer circuit, so the output is interlaced, and should flicker. Plus are you sure that the Seiko (or may be your Sieko 1450) can display SuperHires mode? It's 15KHz. >effects when swiching modes. I am very satisfied with the resolution >Using the overscan program in 2.0, my workbench is 710x480 in HiRes >Interlaced, 676x493 in Productivity, and 1420x480 in SuperHires >interlaced. >The colors on my Sieko are brilliant (it has the same tube as the >Sony). The only thing that I have noticed is that some graphic >pictures actually look better on a 1080 since the better monitor does >not let the colors "bleed" at all. :-) >I got the 1450 since it was deinterlaced. But, it is not NTSC and I don't think the 1450 has any deinterlace ability. >cannot display 15Mhz (the 3d can). However, it has a better dot pitch >than the 3d (.25 vs .28) and costs the same. Then I don't think you can display SuperHires mode. >The price I paid for the 1450 is $595. (It lists for > $750). Be >sure to shop around. The 3d costs $575. You have good price there. >-Rich >-- > // Rich | "Truth is disputable; not taste." - Hume >\X/ Andrews | "180 degrees from sick is still sick" - J. Bradshaw No flames intended, but just to make sure readers are not misled. David Tse
andrewsr@steely.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May15.035843.16448@ucselx.sdsu.edu> maxc1503@ucselx.sdsu.edu (David Tse) writes: > the 1280x400 in NTSC, and is not supported by the Amber chip, Display > Enhancer circuit, so the output is interlaced, and should flicker. > Plus are you sure that the Seiko (or may be your Sieko 1450) can display > SuperHires mode? It's 15KHz. If it is interlaced from the Amiga, then it must be deinterlaced from the Sieko since it is not there! I use this mode often, and *I* can't see any flicker. (Productivity interlaced is the only mode that I can see flicker on). > > I don't think the 1450 has any deinterlace ability. The 1440 is interlaced, the 1450 is non-interlaced. Is there a difference between "non-interlaced" and "de-interlaced?" > > >cannot display 15Mhz (the 3d can). However, it has a better dot pitch > >than the 3d (.25 vs .28) and costs the same. > > Then I don't think you can display SuperHires mode. Humm, now you got me interested. Why can I display SuperHires interlaced without flicker on a 31Mhz VGA monitor? Perhaps it does work in 15Mhz...any clues? > > >The price I paid for the 1450 is $595. (It lists for > $750). Be > >sure to shop around. The 3d costs $575. > You have good price there. > Thanks dude. I went to a local dealer who wanted $750. I showed him an Ad from PC shopper, and he dropped to 595. > No flames intended, but just to make sure readers are not misled. None taken. I would like to know what is really going on though. > David Tse -Rich -- // Rich | "If there is nothing wrong with me, then maybe there is \X/ Andrews | something wrong with the universe." - Beverly
tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE) (05/16/91)
In article <May.15.08.48.59.1991.2672@steely.rutgers.edu> andrewsr@steely.rutgers.edu (Rich Andrews) writes: > >The 1440 is interlaced, the 1450 is non-interlaced. Is there a >difference between "non-interlaced" and "de-interlaced?" I think this difference only matters on the IBM clone, namely Super VGA 1024x768 mode. The interlaced monitors will diaply flicker on this mode, and non-interlaced won't. Since de-interlacer from Commodore only uses standard VGA freq., this difference _shouldn't_ affect the display at all. May be there are some other differences betweem 1440 and 1450... -TG +-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Yeo-Hoon Bae tinyguy@homer.cs.mcgill.ca | /// | | Dept. Computer Science, McGill University, Canada | /// | |-----------------------------------------------------------| \\\/// | | Amiga2000 & 386SX | \XX/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+