ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (03/05/91)
NONINTERLACED vs. INTERLACED MONITORS
(1231 lines, 64 KB)
The number of requests to post/forward the summary of responses to
the Interlaced/Non-interlaced monitor questions was simply
overwhelming. Thus, inspite of the length of the compilation of the
responses, I decided to post it. For the sake of brevity, I have
edited out headers, salutations, pleasantries, and disclaimers. I
would like to mention that neither my posting nor the posting of any
one of the following individuals should be construed to represent any
one else's opinion, excepting the original, individual author. I have
suppressed the identity of those who requested me to do so. In case
my editing changes the intent or the meaning of any response, I
apologize for it in advance.
The first of the several responses that are concatenated below
includes the important sections of my original posting in quotes
(marked by the ">" sign at the left). For those who may not know the
difference between interlacing and noninterlacing, the second message
should be useful. For subsequent responses, the parts within the
quotes have been edited significantly. It may be good idea to
download the file, print it out and peruse it at your leisure.
For what its worth, I finally decided to buy a Viewsonic 4 monitor
(Matshushita) that is interlaced at 1024 x 760, but non-interlaced at
lower resolutions. My Perfect View VGA card has 1 MB of memory, so I
can look at GIF files at 1024 x 768 (interlaced) and 256 colors.
Perhaps because my monitor has a medium persistence phosphorous
screen, I don't seem to consciously notice any flicker. (It may
still tire my eyes, as many have warned.) However, my use of the
higher resolutions is rare. In Word Perfect 5.1, I tried the page
preview setting at 800 x 600 as well as the 1024 x 760. Surpri-
singly, it is the former setting that seems to cause the screen to
waver a bit.
Finally, I wish to thank each and every individual who had been kind
enough to respond to my questions.
Hope this is of some use to you. Best regards,
- Jhinuk Chowdhury.
======================================================================
From: chao@CS.UCLA.EDU (Chia-Chi Chao)
>I am perilously close to committing a great deal of my own money in a
>386/33 system with 64K cache (CPU). At work, I sit in front of a NEC
>Mutisync II monitor (EGA color) tied to a Compuadd 286 for long hours.
>At the end of the day, I frequently have a headache and sometimes feel
>a little giddy/dizzy/whatever. It may be no fault of the monitor or
>the computer system, but I don't feel comfortable about this at all.
>Since I am required to wear glasses for myopia (not much, though), it's
>possible that my eyes are responsible for the way I feel.
>
>Anyway . . . I discovered, after a little reading, that for the new
>system I will put at home, it would be kinder to my eyes if I purchase
>a *non-interlaced* SVGA monitor instead of an interlaced SVGA monitor.
>To my dismay, I found out that non-interlaced monitors are about $300-
>$400 more expensive than interlaced SVGA monitors. In fact, I could only
>locate two brands - a SONY and a Seiko.
>
>I have some questions, now. Please help me clear up my confusion.
>
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? That is, is interlacing something that becomes
> necessary to keep costs down for the 1024 x 768 display monitors,
> since the display density otherwise becomes too high?
I think so. I am pretty sure that 640x480 is always non-interlaced.
Higher resolution can be either way, depending on video card and
monitor.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical at higher
> resolutions (1024 x 768, 800 x 760, etc) and less critical at lower
> resolutions (640 x 480, etc.)?
Yes, higher resolution has to generate much more data, so the refresh
rate goes down.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact,
> or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
I think the refresh rate has a lot to do with it. Some newer boards
have 70Hz refresh rate (European standard), which should be much
better for the eyes. I believe you need appropriate monitor ($$$)
also.
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors other than the
> Sony 1304 and the Seiko 1450? Where are they available and at what
> kind of bargains?
Seiko seems to have better reviews.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? Users' favorites or
> critics' choices? What makes them so?
I use 800x600 just to display GIF pictures. Even with non-interlaced
in that mode and NEC 3D, the flicker bothers me. Higher resolution
means slower screen update. You have to look at the monitors
yourself with white background.
========================================================================
From: kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker)
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At work, I sit in front of a NEC
>Mutisync II monitor (EGA color) tied to a Compuadd 286 for long hours.
>At the end of the day, I frequently have a headache and sometimes feel
>a little giddy/dizzy/whatever. It may be no fault of the monitor or
>the computer system, but I don't feel comfortable about this at all.
>Since I am required to wear glasses for myopia (not much, though), it's
>possible that my eyes are responsible for the way I feel.
I am not a hardware guru but I do suffer from eye problems. My
solution would not be appropriate for you as it cost $7,000.
However, I can offer some guidance.
If you are suffering dizzy spells and fatigue then it very may well
be eye strain. The connection from your eyes to your brain is a very
delicate one.
You should absolutely get a non-interlaced monitor, preferably 16".
It does not need to be SVGA (which is > 640x480) but the more
resolution the better and the less strain there will be on your eyes.
Most monitors that are available now will permit a resolution of 1024
x 768 in non-interlaced mode. This is what you should go for.
Interlacing refers to the fact that the video signal traces every
other line of pixels on the screen and then goes back and does the
other set of pixels. This effectively lets the monitor manufacturer
use a lower scan rate (Hz) and thus less expensive components.
However, they also have to use longer glow phosphor which eliminates
the flicker. Thus, not only do you get less expensive components but
you also get a phosphor that will leave image retension visible on
the screen after the image changes.
Non-interlacing is when the monitor has a high enough scan rate
capability that it can paint all pixel lines in one sweep. This
requires more expensive components but they can use less persisten
phosphor. Thus, not only is the image painted faster but it does not
persist as long and thus you get a cleaner image and no flicker.
One thing that you may want to investigate is seeing an
ophthamologist about your eyes. I went ot mine and received a
medical statement about the stress and strain related to my use of
computers all day long and after a bit of complaining the University
got me a totally new system with a 21" 1280x1024 monitor. This
happened at a time when the university's capital budget had just been
effectively deleted by the powers to be.
=========================================================================
From: "Brian K. W. Hook" <jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu>
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? . . .
First off, I cannot think of a single monitor that interlaces at
800x600, the resolution right below 1024x768. Thus, interlacing only
becomes an issue at very high resolutions (1024768,1280x1024,
2048x2048, etc.)
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
Well, yes and no. Interlacing does introduce a little bit of
flicker. It is entirely dependent on the individual how badly he or
she is affected by this flicker. To me, it is viley annoying. This
flicker has two side effects: A.) It increases eye strain and
causes user fatigue; B.) It makes the graphics and especially
graphics text blurrier. Summary: at lower resolutions, you suffer
from eyestrain. At higher resolution, you suffer from eyestrain and
blurriness (which adds more eyestrain).
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display . . .
Eye strain is for real. But, as I said, it is up to the individual.
Most people I know get annoyed with it. It is visible enough where
you can tell something that is interlacing from something is not.
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors . . .
Hmm...well, non-interlacing? Let's see, the NEC 4D is a 16", does
high res, but is hideously expensive. You might want to check on
Princeton's Ultrasync 14, not sure about that one. Both Seiko and
Sony uses Trinitron's REAL nice .25mm dp tube with pitch black
background. I can recommend both heartily.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? . . .
Okay, here is where I get to the point of this discussion:
1024x768 IS USELESS ON A 14" MONITOR. The only applicatiosn that I
know of that even use 1024 mode are Windows 3.0 and CAD programs.
BOTH require that you use large (16" or greater) monitors to
appreciate. Windows 3 with 1024 mode has TINY text. I mean SMALL.
Contrary to popular belief, when you up the resolution you are no
upping the actual resolution, you are just fitting more on the
screen. Pain in the brain. I don't like it. I am using 800x600
mode for EVERYTHING these days so I don't squint when reading the
screen. When I can get the bucks for a Nanao or NEC monitor then I
will switch to non-interlaced 1024 mode.
=========================================================================
From: (Anonymous)
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x . . .
Yes. You have no choices to make (with respect to interlace) for
monitors with 800x600 or less.
> That is, is interlacing something that becomes
> necessary to keep costs down for the 1024 x 768 display monitors . .
Yes, interlacing is cheaper. Interlaced monitors use standard TV
components which are cheap because they're made by the zillions.
Non-interlaced monitors need much higher video bandwidth, and need
oscilators that can handle much higher frequencies, and these cost
more $$$.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
No. Interlacing ALWAYS hurts (bothers) the eyes. Fortunately,
this is not a problem at lower resolutions, since lower
resolutions NEVER interlace.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact . .
When I walk into a computer store, I can tell at a glance which
monitors interlace and which don't. The image on the interlaced
monitors seem to jitter, VERY NOTICABLY. I can't watch it for
long without discomfort of eye and stomach. Some people
can't/don't see it, and maybe it wouldn't bother them to sit in
front of it all day.
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors other than . . .
I dunno. I'm not sure about the NEC 4D (the BIG one). Relisys
sold a model that claimed to run non-interlaced 1024x768 but the
model I tested out (at the dealer's) failed to sync in non-
interlaced mode miserably. (I'm not even sure Relisys is around
any more). I stopped following the monitor market when I bought
my Sony 1304.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? . . .
First, be aware that since NO SVGA modes are standard, the ONLY
software that you have that's going to use the SVGA mode is
software for which special drivers are available. Ask yourself
if you have any of that special software (do you have autocad,
Lotus 123, etc?). I've seen people buy SVGA monitors because of
impressive displays in stores, and salesmen who tell them that
the SVGA monitors have better pictures, etc. Then have NO
software that uses those modes!! One salesman told me he gives
away a disk with shareware GIF viewers and GIF files, just so his
customers will have SOME WAY to use the HIRES modes, and not
develop buyer's remorse about spending the extra money w/o any
extra VALUE.
I periodically change the resolution of my Windows 3.0 driver. I
find that 1024x768x256 produces text that is painfully small to
read for any length of time on my 1304. 800x600 is Easier on the
eyes, (but I'm myopic, too).
One more important point. The Non-interlaced monitors are also
capable of running in interlaced mode !! There are some SVGA
cards that can only run in interlaced mode, and do not have the
crystals with high enough frequencies to run non-interlaced.
I've seen stores sell these cards with 1304s, and claim the
system is non-interlaced because it is hooked to a 1304. How do
you tell? Most reliable way: buy a name brand board that claims
non-interlaced. Or, have someone with good eyes test it.
I think you might be very happy with an 800x600x256 setup which costs
a LOT less (and doesn't interlace). I've had one on my 286 system
for 2 years+ and am very happy. (my sony is on my 386).
=========================================================================
From: jbraun@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James S Braun)
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower . . .
You really need to read the specs of the monitor in question to
determine which modes are interlaced. Now-a-days, most VGA monitors
that offer resoltions of greater 800x600 or more either interlace in
their 1024x768 mode or not. You can usually be assured that only the
highest resolution that the monitor is capable of is elegible for
interlacing.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
With a machine like the one you described, you would want a monitor
that is capable of displaying 1024x768. If you get one, you would
really only have to worry if that mode in particular is interlaced or
not, most every monitor on the market will not interlace at lower
modes. Yes, interlacing can be critical, but it depends on the
phosphor, and several other factors of the monitor. The Seiko 1440
interlaces at 1024x768 and you can notice some flicker in that mode
(IE running windows) but the Panasonic tube, (the model number
escapes me) has a different phosphor that doesn't show the flicker as
much.
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors . . .
The Seiko 1450 is an excellent monitor! It is based on the Sony
Trinitron tube and has the absolute best dot pitch on the market. I
use a Seiko at home, it's great! Viewsonic is selling a nice
1024x768 monitor that doesn't cost that much, it is almost identical
to the Panasonic, since it uses the same tube. Optiquest has
introduced some low-cost tubes based on the trinitron and Toshiba
tubes. I have had a lot of experience with different monitors, and I
find that your first suggestion, the Seiko 1450 is the best on the
market right now. It is really worth it. The dot pitch is .25, the
colors are fantastic. I don't think that NEC monitors are worth the
money. Text modes on NEC monitors are dissapointing. Convergence and
sizing can be a problem.
You should be concerned equally of the display board that you
are/will be using. Make sure that all modes are supported, and,
recent developments have made it possible to obtain a board with 1mb
of viceo memory for less than $200. The speed of your graphics board
can really be a bottleneck, especially for a 33mhz 386. Make sure
your graphics board is one of the new ones (ATI, STB, Viceo 7 etc.)
that use a *fast-ram* technology.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about interlacing at 1024x768, you
probally won't use that mode that often anyway. I know, because I
run windows 3.0 in 800x600 mode instead of 1024x768 (even though my
display/board are capable) because the fonts are so small that it is
too straining on the eyes to read on a 14 inch monitor. 1024x768
should really be used with a 16 or 19 inch monitor, and we all know
how much those cost!
To summarize, I think that the Seiko 1450 is a fantastic choice, and
I would suggest waiting to find one at a reasonable price.
Otherwise, the Panasonic or ViewSonic monitors are also good
performers. PC World or Magazine both have several mail order houses
that have good prices for these monitors. If you can't find a Seiko
1440-1450 for $550-$600 respectively, send me back e-mail. I can buy
them direct from Seiko. (I decided to get a tax-resale # to be able
to buy wholesale)
=========================================================================
From: 6600sirt%ucsbuxa@hub.ucsb.edu (Mike O'Brien)
The simple answer is: interlaced displays flicker. If you have ever
watched a freeze-frame jumping around on a television, you will know
what I mean. (Televisions are all interlaced.) Generally it's not
too annoying on TV, because there aren't many non-moving things. But
on a computer screen, there are.
It is expensive, using today's technology, to make a non-interlaced
1024x7up screen. But how often are you going to really use 1024x768?
Most SVGA monitors are only interlaced when they are in 1024x768
mode. I have a NEC Multisynch 3D, which is interlaced in 1024x768,
but I almost always use 800x600 instead (because SVGA boards provide
more colors at 800x600 than at 1024x768) and that is rock solid on
the screen.
One more thing... SVGA is not the current state-of-the-art video
adapter. XGA is. XGA will force a non-interlaced monitor to become
interlaced if you run it at 1024x768, because XGA cannot handle the
frequencies required to do non-interlaced graphics at that
resolution.
All in all, I _highly_ recommend the NEC Multisync 3D, which is the
best 14" monitor I have ever used (and I have used alot). If you are
going to be using 1024x768 all day and want to reduce flicker, get a
NEC Multisync 4D, but be sure you also get a SVGA card that can
handle non-interlaced 1024x768, such as the ATI VGA Wonder.
=========================================================================
From: Richard Reiner <rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca>
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? . . .
The usual multisync SVGA monitors can handle all modes up to and
including 800x600 without interlacing. They use interlacing for the
1024x768 modes only.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
At 800x600 or below, interlacing is not an issue: see above. At
1024x768, using interlacing, some monitors flicker and/or blur badly,
and others do not. I have found that this does not have much to do
with the price of the monitor. My own is a cheap one, and it does
not flicker at all, and hardly blurs, at 1024x768 interlaced.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? . . .
For some purposes I prefer 800x600 noninterlaced over the 1024x768
interlaced on my system; it seems clearer in some respects than the
1024x768 interlaced. But despite the interlacing the extra
resolution of the 1024x768 modes is clearly visible.
=========================================================================
From: "Mark...{mbb}" <mbb@ukc.ac.uk>
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? . . .
As far a I know resolutions below 1024x768 do not require interlace,
so on these monitors only this mode will be interlaced.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
I would expect it to be the opposite actually. Interlace, is the
flicker you see onscreen. On low res. screens the pricture will
appear to flicker up and down a lot more than on higher res. screens.
Basically if you buy a monitor that only needs to interlace at
1024x768, but no less then the picture quality is going to be a lot
higher, and therefore a lot less straining that say 512line mode on
home computers (ie amiga) which need to be interlaced to fit on a tv
screen.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced . . .
No. Interlaced, or flickery screens are a lot more straining than
the rock steady image from a non interlaced screen.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? . . .
In my experience the higher the resolution the better, but even
though a non-interlaced 800x600 display may not look as good as an
interlaced 1024x768 display, you will probably be able to work a lot
longer at the non-interlaced screen.
If you are using text based applications, then used a lower res -
non-interlaced display, for graphics (ie cad, dtp or windows) make
sure that you can change screen drivers fairly easily, and use high
res. or non-interlaced as appropriate. This means that long periods
of draft work should be done in the highest res non-interlaced modes,
whereas final proofing etc, should be done in the highest res. mode.
Personally I wouldnt bother with non-interlaced 1024x768 displays, as
if you do, you will notice that they can also do 1240x1024 modes, but
(yes - you guessed it) only in interlace. *:-)
The better your screen display, the more greedy you get, and the
better you want. Not too long ago I thought hercules monochrome
graphics were great and didnt want anything better, now I have
started using VGA I want SGVA and will probably want the super-
superVGA when thay come out soon.
Also there will be something better/cheaper/faster/smaller around
every corner as far as computing goes. The best policy is to get the
best you can afford now, and if you find that this is woefully
inadequate, upgrade later.
=========================================================================
From: chuck@umbc5.umbc.edu (Chuck Rickard)
I have a Relisys RE-1520, which is a multisync capable of handling
1024x768 non-interlaced and all other lower resolutions. It is a 15
inch flat screen monitor and as also has a built-in monitor stand
(who doesn't these days!). I picked mine up from Wintec Industries
for around $600 back in September. Their number is (415) 770-9239.
=========================================================================
From: toma@sail.labs.tek.com (Tom Almy)
If you don't require color, consider a monochrome monitor. They are
much easier on the eyes, and cost significantly less. Still get non-
interlaced. Interlaced monitors are miserable at any resolution.
=========================================================================
From: david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (david sigeti)
Your should know that Swan (a mail order outfit that advertises
in PC Magazine and, I think, in Computer Shopper) is now offering
a 15'' 1024x768 *non-interlaced* monitor for something like $700.
Swan got very high ratings for reliability and customer service
in the special report in PC Magazine a few months ago and seems
to have a good reputation. I don't think that the monitor has
been reviewed but you could call Swan and ask them.
=========================================================================
From: ross@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Ross Porter)
I don't know what your color needs are, but you might want to consider
grey-scale non-interlaced 1024x768 displays for two reasons:
1. They only run about $300 for a 14-inch unit
2. A good gs unit will be clearer than a good color unit
(less blooming, etc.) -- they're just less stuff in a gs
unit that has eye-strain potential (no tension mask, smoother
phosphor coating, etc.).
Unfortunately, I don't have an article to refer you to that compares
the visual effects of gs and color mons. I bet someone on the net
could give you the whole story though.
=========================================================================
From: khoult@BBN.COM
Many of the monitors will run non-interlaced until they hit a
resolution high enough, then switch over to interlaced.
My system uses a compuadd VGA card which can do up to 1024x768x256.
The monitor is a seiko CM1440. This monitor runs non-interlaced until
the 1024x768 mode, then switches over. When it is in the interlaced
mode, certain pictures have a bit of flicker. I wouldn't want to
always see that myself, it will tire your eyes. But, not many
programs use the 1024x768 mode. This mix was a compromise between
price & quality. The CM1440 runs about $450.
=========================================================================
From: Jan Engvald <xjeldc@tts.lth.se>
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact,
> or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? Users' favorites or
> critics' choices? What makes them so?
You can find answers to some of your questions in the article below
that I posted to comp.ibm-pc.hardware last year. I now have got the
Sigma VGA Legend and the NEC MultiSync 4D, and just as I predicted it
flickers somewhat at 1024*768 (60 Hz) but 800*600 (72 Hz) *IS* superb!
No flicker att all and very sharp. I have no data on Sony or Seiko,
if you have, look at the video bandwidth and see in the tables below
what you can expect from them.
NEC has lowered the price on 4D by $300 so now it should be $750.
There is also now a Trident "Sharp image" (?) for $195 which also can
be strapped for a 48 kHz monitor and may have similar properties as
the Legend card. $945 all in all.
A monitor that can show 1024*768 at 85 Hz non-interlaced must have
twice as high video bandwith as one that shows a 1024*768 picture
at 42.5 Hz interlaced. And higher bandwidth raises the cost of the
monitor A LOT, as can be seen below. Thats the trade off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to upgrade my present graphic card and monitor to new ones
capable of 1024*768 and 256 colors in Windows 3. However, I want to
have flickerfree display, which to me means 66 Hz or above refresh
rate. And not too expensive (less than $1500). Here is a summary of
what I've found so far.
Increasing refresh rate and resolution puts higher demands on the
monitor. Here is a table of horisontal scan frequency and video
bandwidth required for some common and uncommon cases. The horisontal
frequency is calculated proportional to the vertical frequency,
bandwidth is also proportional to the horisontal resolution. For the
latter I only have one calibration point, where for 640*480 I have
found 30 MHz to be usable and 40 MHz to be excellent.
Note that for interlaced mode (1024*768i) you will get 43.5 Hz
flicker for single pixel width lines (thus VERY visible in Windows or
AutoCad) but 87 Hz flicker for large areas (so photos will be
completely flickerfree).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graphic mode ! vertical ! horisontal ! video !
! frequency ! frequency ! bandwidth !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCGA 320*200 ! 70 Hz ! 31.5 kHz ! ! IBM standard
320*200 ! 85 Hz ! 38 kHz ! ! Sigma VGA Legend
VGA 640*480 ! 60 Hz ! 31.5 kHz ! 30- 40 MHz ! IBM standard
640*480 ! 70 Hz ! 37 kHz ! 35- 47 MHz ! Tatung OmniVGA/HR
640*480 ! 72 Hz ! 38 kHz ! 36- 49 MHz ! Sigma VGA Legend
SVGA 800*600 ! 56 Hz ! 35.5 kHz ! 42- 56 MHz ! most SuperVGA cards
800*600 ! 60 Hz ! 38 kHz ! 45- 60 MHz ! MegaVGA
800*600 ! 66 Hz ! 42 kHz ! 50- 66 MHz ! ?
800*600 ! 72 Hz ! 46 kHz ! 55- 73 MHz ! Sigma VGA Legend
800*600 ! 79 Hz ! 50 kHz ! 60- 79 MHz ! ?
800*600 ! 90 Hz ! 57 kHz ! 68- 90 MHz ! ?
IBM8514 1024*768i ! 43.5/87 Hz ! 35.5 kHz ! 54- 72 MHz ! IBM standard
1024*768i ! 50/100 Hz ! 41 kHz ! 62- 83 MHz ! ?
UVGA 1024*768 ! 60 Hz ! 48 kHz ! 74- 98 MHz ! new Ultra VGA cards
1024*768 ! 66 Hz ! 53 kHz ! 81-108 MHz ! ?
1024*768 ! 70 Hz ! 56 kHz ! 85-114 MHz ! ?
1024*768 ! 80 Hz ! 64 kHz ! 97-130 MHz ! ?
1280*1024 ! 60 Hz ! 64 kHz ! 120-163 MHz ! ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are data on some monitors I've found (price in $$$ is about SEK/10):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make and model ! vertical ! horisontal ! video ! size ! dot ! price
! frequency ! frequency ! bandwidth ! inch ! pitch! SEK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTX Multiscan ! 50- 90 Hz ! 15-38 kHz ! 40 MHz ! 14 ! 0.28 ! 4590
NEC Multisync 3D ! 50- 90 Hz ! 15-38 kHz ! 45 MHz ! 14 ! 0.28 ! 5920
Hitachi 14MVX ! 50-100 Hz ! 30-40 kHz ! 45 MHz ! 14 ! 0.28 ! 6450
Idek MS 5115 ! 50- 90 Hz ! 21-50 kHz ! 50 MHz ! 15 ! ! 8900
EIZO 9070z ! 50- 80 Hz ! 20-50 kHz ! 50 MHz ! 16 ! 0.28 ! 10550
EIZO 9080i ! 50- 90 Hz ! 30-64 kHz ! 60 MHz ! 16 ! 0.28 ! 11995
NEC Multisync 4D ! 50- 90 Hz ! 30-57 kHz ! 75 MHz ! 16 ! 0.28 ! 10500
Hitachi HiScan 20 ! 50-100 Hz ! 30-64 kHz ! ?/100 MHz ! 20 ! 0.31 ! 24900
NEC Multisync 5D ! 50- 90 Hz ! 30-66 kHz ! 75/110 MHz ! 20 ! 0.31
EIZO 9400i ! 55- 90 Hz ! 30-65 kHz ! 120 MHz ! 20 ! 0.31 ! 23900
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, comparing the two tables above one can see that the most
important monitor parameter seems to be the bandwidth. For example,
the 4D can sync a 1024*768 70 Hz refresh picture, but single pixel
text will probably not be crisp. But 800*600 at 72 Hz will be very
crisp and 1024*768 at 60 Hz will also look good (this is by
calculation, I havn't looked at it yet, so I may be wrong).
Finally, here is some information on some of the new cards. I only
have got fact sheets on the STB and Sigma cards, other info gathered
from ads or by phone and may be incorrect (at least it is
incomplete).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make and model ! vertical ! horisontal ! Price and software drivers
! frequency ! frequency !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mega/EVA 1 Mbyte 2990 SEK
1024*768i ! 43.5/87 Hz ! 35.5 kHz !
1024*768 ! 60 Hz ! 48 kHz !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tseng Lab Turbo MegaVGA 1 Mbyte 3990 SEK
1024*768i ! 43.5/87 Hz ! 35.5 kHz !
1024*768 ! 60 Hz ! 48 kHz !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB VGA EM-16 Plus 1 Mbyte 4770 SEK w3 AC Xw PM Ux
1024*768i ! 43.5/87 Hz ! 35.5 kHz !
1024*768 ! 60 Hz ! 48 kHz !
800*600 ! 56 Hz ! 35 kHz !
640*480 ! 60 Hz ! 31.5 kHz !
text ! 70 Hz ! 31.5 kHz !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MegaVGA 1 Mbyte 3120 SEK w3
1024*768i ! 43.5/87 Hz ! 35.5 kHz !
1024*768 ! ? Hz ! ? kHz !
800*600 ! 60 Hz ! 37.7 kHz !
800*600 ! 56 Hz ! 35.5 kHz !
640*480 ! 60 Hz ! 31.5 kHz !
text ! ? ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma VGA Legend 1 Mbyte 3950 SEK ($569)
1024*768i ! 43.5/87 Hz ! 35.5 kHz ! w3 AC Gem L123 PM VP MW WP WS
1024*768 ! 60 Hz ! 49 kHz !
800*600 ! 56 Hz ! 35.5 kHz !
800*600 ! 60 Hz ! 38 kHz !
800*600 ! 72 Hz ! 48 kHz !
640*480 ! 60 Hz ! 31.5 kHz !
640*480 ! 72 Hz ! 38 kHz !
text ! 70 Hz ! 31.5 kHz !
text ! 85 Hz ! 38? kHz !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orchid Prodesigner II 1024*768*256 1 MByte
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Micro System V2GA 1024*768*256 noninterlaced 8514
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICS Ultimate VGA 1024*768*256 int-/non-interlaced w3 8514
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation so far:
My goal of 1024*768*256 at 66Hz for less than $1500 can not be
fullfilled. However, the 4D + Sigma Legend gives 800*600*256 at 72
Hz, which is not bad at all (with this card you can select different
refresh rates depending of the capabilities of your monitor). And I
can get 1024*768*256 at 60 Hz, giving only slight flicker.
Are there other cards than the Legend with 800*600*256 at above 66 Hz
refresh rate?
=========================================================================
From: sixhub!davidsen@crdgw1.ge.com (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
You can reduce flicker to the point where most people can't see it by
using a long persistance monitor. The DiamondScan LP seriae does
this. By combining the less expensive interlace electronics with the
long persistance phosphor you get very little flicker. The downside
is that you may get some "comet tail" when omving the cursor, and
things deleted from the screen don't vanish, they fade.
There is no free lunch.
=========================================================================
From: jstone@world.std.com (Jeffrey R Stone)
I don't have much experience with monitors beyond EGA; I just
purchased an SVGA monitor that will do interlaced 1024x768, and it
looks pretty good. I can't see any flicker, and my short expreience
with it to date has been good. Note that I only use the 1024 mode
occasionally with a graphics program. Otherwise it's in VGA mode and
displaying text for 99% of the time.
The real point of my reply, though, is to address the physical health
vs. the VDT issue. In my case, I had neck and shoulder stiffness, as
well as some amount of eyestrain. I found that by getting up and
walking around the room, stretching, taking a pee-break, or whatever,
that my muscles gat a chance to unkink, relax from the tension of
holding one position, etc. It made a BIG difference in the way I
felt, during and after my workday. Getting some real physical
exercise at midday helped alot too.
To remind myself to stop periodically, I wore a digital watch that
chimed the hour and half-hour, and whenever it chimed (or soon
thereafter) I'd get up and take a couple minutes break. After a few
weeks I had the habit, and didn't need the chime anymore. I just
start noticing the need for a break, and take it.
=========================================================================
From: mlf@genrad.com (Matt Fichtenbaum)
I find NEC monitors dim and fuzzy and unsatisfying. At home I have a
Seiko 1440, the older, non-interlaced version of the 1450. I like it
very much. Check out the 1450.
=========================================================================
From: "Michael D. Kersenbrock" <michaelk%copper.wr.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>
I'm about to upgrade my home's 12-MHZ 286's display (can't afford a
whole new one!) to a SVGA. I've been doing my "homework", and am
near a decision/purchase.
>$400 more expensive than interlaced SVGA monitors. In fact, I could only
>locate two brands - a SONY and a Seiko.
There are others, such as Nanao.
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? . . .
Yes.
> necessary to keep costs down for the 1024 x 768 display monitors,
> since the display density otherwise becomes too high?
Mmmm, bandwidth becomes higher (higher in frequency as well as having
to have a wider range of sync frequencies in the case of a
multisync). This affects coil inductances, drivers, and even the
High-voltage supply!
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
Don't know that is resolution-critical, so much as flicker-at-any-
resolution critical.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact,
> or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
Amount of affect seems to depend upon the particular person's eyes
and the particular phosphor used by your display. The trinitron
tubes of Seiko and Sony seem to use "medium"-persistance phosphor
(lower flicker), and many have a "fast" phosphor (flickers more). Of
course, being on the "edge" and not visibly flickering, is ok for
occasional use, but it will still cause eye-strain because your eye
focusing mechanism has a wider bandwidth than does your retina (and
it will "fight" the flicker even though you can't see it).
>
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors . . .
These are 14"-class displays, and in store demo-displays of microsoft
windows (my particular major use), the icons, display, etc are TOO
SMALL on this size tube (interlace or not). A 16" is probably the
minimum needed (to my eyes). Because of this, I've personally
"decided" upon the Seiko 1440 where nominal mode would be the non-
interlace 800x600 mode,and the 1K x 768 used only upon occasion
(viewing GIFs perhaps).
There's a company (Atron or some such) in the back of both PC Week
and Infoworld that sells the Seiko 1440 plus the Orchid Prodesigner
II for $659 together.
=========================================================================
From: jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson)
>Anyway . . . I discovered, after a little reading, that for the new
>system I will put at home, it would be kinder to my eyes if I purchase
>a *non-interlaced* SVGA monitor instead of an interlaced SVGA monitor.
Only in high-resoluton modes. Even an interlaced SVGA monitor will
work in non-interlaced mode for (say) 640x480 resolution mode. Oh,
by the way, you should match the display card to the monitor. Not all
display cards can do high-resolution non-interlaced: Check this out
before spending money on a monitor.
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? . . .
This is essentially correct. 1024x768 starts requiring very high
bandwidth electronics, particularly on color displays. One way to
reduce the bandwidth requirements (and the cost of the electronics)
is to interlace the signal: You can display every other line on each
refresh cycle, effectively cutting the bandwidth requirement in half.
In general, it doesn't make sense to interlace 800x600 resolution or
less with today's display technology. However, a CGA monitor can
display EGA resolution by using interlacing (I had a software package
that could actually do this, although the results were terrible!)
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
As I said earlier, an interlacing monitor will not interlace at low
resolutions. So, yes, the advantage of non-interlacing is ONLY
signficant at high resolutions.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact,
> or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
I can't answer that. There is a basic trade-off when using
interlacing: you can use a high-persistance phospher (which tends to
"smear" during scrolling or other motion on the screen), which
eliminates the flicker effect entirely. Or you can optimize for non-
interlaced operation, which causes flicker during interlaced modes.
The flicker is not always directly perceptable: I find that I notice
it more when I look at the display from the corner of my eye. Also,
graphics tends to flicker more than text: the edges of line drawings
drawn at odd angles tend to "sparkle" a little.
I guess it depends on what you are doing. If you are primarily using
low-res modes, with an occasional foray into high-res, then it really
doesn't matter that much. If you are using the display exclusively
in the high resolution mode (with a windows or X11 driver, for
instance), then you might want to consider a non-interlaced display.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? . . .
Most software for the IBM PC doesn't use any more than 640x480. For
X11, I like the maximum resolution I can find. I like 1280x1024 a
lot.
=========================================================================
From: acook@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
|> To my dismay, I found out that non-interlaced monitors are about $300-
|> $400 more expensive than interlaced SVGA monitors. In fact, I could only
|> locate two brands - a SONY and a Seiko.
These are probably the cheapest of the brand-name non-interlaced
1024x768 monitors. You may be able to find some cheaper ones, if you
look at clone manufacturors.
> 1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? That is, is interlacing something that becomes
> necessary to keep costs down for the 1024 x 768 display monitors . .
Yes, interlacing is a way to cut costs. It all comes down to what
horizontal synch frequencies the monitor can handle. Interlaced
1024x768 multisynch monitors typically have frequency ranges of 15-
31.5 Khz. This range is good enough to do all modes non-interlaced,
except 1024x768. Because of the number of pixels on a line at
1024x768, hor. frequencies greater than 31.5kHz are required (around
48KHz ?) to hit every pixel on the screen in one pass. Thus some
boards will interlace (hit every other line per pass) the monitor to
get 1024x768. Before buying a monitor, be sure it can handle the
horizontal freq.'s for the modes you want to use. ie/ 1024x768 at
48kHz, 800x600 at 31.5kHz, 640x480 at 31 kHz. Most multisync
monitors will handle all VGA modes except 1024x768 non-interlaced.
> 2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical at higher
> resolutions (1024 x 768, 800 x 760, etc) and less critical at lower
> resolutions (640 x 480, etc.)?
On most monitors, only 1024x768 is interlaced. Lower res are non-
interlaced. Check the horizontal frequencies.
> 3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact,
> or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
Interlacing scans every other line per screen refresh. This causes
perceptible flicker on monitors with short lifetime phosphors. This
can cause your eye to try to follow the flicker, which causes eye-
strain (eye is trying o keep up with the flicker which is at about 30
Hz for interlaced 1024x768, ie 1/2 the vertical refresh frequency).
Interlacing can also lead to dimmer screens, since the pixels are
refreshed 1/2 as often.
> 4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors other than the
> Sony 1304 and the Seiko 1450? Where are they available and at what
> kind of bargains?
These are the lowest priced that I know of(mail order), unless you go
with a clone(who's reliability and support I would look in to
carefully before purchasing one). If you want to spend more money,
look at the NEC 4D. It has a bigger screen (16"), and digital
controls & memories for your settings.
> 5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? . . .
This depends a lot on what software you use, and what kind of support
those programs have for higher res modes(or driver with the board).
If you run win3, 1024x768 on a 13" monitor is tough to use, for text
becomes so small it is tough to read. 800x600 is a very useable res
though. For text based programs, (wordprocessing, spreadsheets,
etc..), it really doesn't matter what mode you are in, as long as it
isn't CGA, and you have colors enough to make you happy.
> I really cannot afford the additional money for the non-interlaced,
> especially after the 386/33 CPU. But if I must, I will wait until I do
> have the cash.
Since you bought a super-deluxe computer, my guess is that you would
be much happier with super-deluxe video. IMHO, it is worth waiting.
With the video world changing so fast(ie/ XGA & TI 34010 coprocessor
boards are coming of age), a non-interlaced monitor will probably be
a better choice, for it is more likely to support future standards.
=========================================================================
From: kw20lmh0@twnitri1.bitnet
> . . . At work, I sit in front of a NEC
>Mutisync II monitor (EGA color) tied to a Compuadd 286 for long hours.
>At the end of the day, I frequently have a headache and sometimes feel
>a little giddy/dizzy/whatever. It may be no fault of the monitor or
>the computer system, but I don't feel comfortable about this at all.
>Since I am required to wear glasses for myopia (not much, though), it's
>possible that my eyes are responsible for the way I feel.
Many facts will make you feel uncomfortable when seeing a monitor, such
as working time, seat height, light, monitor quality, view angle, sitting
position, voltage(makes the display unsteady), ...
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768, always
> non-interlaced? . . .
Not necessarily. Usually, the non-interlaced display shows about 60
frames per second, while interlaced 30. For the example of 1024 x 768
resolution, the interlaced display performs a 1024 x 384 display at
1st 1/60 seconds, and the other at next 1/60 seconds. Thus forms a
1024 x 768 display per 1/30 seconds. That is why interlaced display
can reach higher resolution at lower cost, and why it makes human
eyes feel uncomfortable. (Interlaced display shows only half a frame
per 1/60 seconds, the full frame is actually weaved by two halves, so
it actually performs 30 frames per second).
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
You may say so.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a fact,
> or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
If you stare at a 14"(or smaller) non-interlaced display with a gauzy
black CRT filter, I bet it would be worse than a larger interlaced
monitor without filters. In fact, some interlaced displaying monitors
use better phosphorous material so that the uncomfortable flashes can
be supressed.
The interlaced are not so worthless, if you don't always need high
resolution graphics display, there are almost no differences between
interlaced and non-interlaced.
========================================================================
From: Bruce A Cowan <USERBAC@SFU.BITNET>
Let's see if I can clear up some of your confusion.
1. *NO* SVGA monitor that I know of runs interlaced at any resolution
less than 1024x768. At typical lower resolutions of 800x600 and
640x480 they are all non-interlaced. This is really a function of
the VGA card. The real reason for interlacing at 1024x768 is to
keep the dot clock speed down so cheaper logic chips can be used,
both in the VGA card and in the monitor, but especially in the
monitor.
2. That Multisync II you have at work will do quite nicely at up to
800x600 on a VGA card. You will find that driving it with a VGA
makes for a much nicer display than driving it with an EGA. Given
that cheap VGAs are less than $100, putting up with an EGA doesn't
make much sense.
3. I don't have much experience with 1024x768 on small (14")
monitors, but I haven't seen any that I could tolerate, even the
Seiko 1450 (it was the best tho). I really think you need at
least a 16" and better yet a 17" or bigger monitor to use
1024x768. Especially if your eyes complain. Mine did too until I
got new glasses (I'm myopic) especially corrected for the 24+"
distance of my monitor. Guess I'm getting old. (I use a 20"
monitor at resolutions from 640x480 to 1280x1024 and I love it; I
hate using other machines where I have to put up with a 16" or
smaller monitor. But you are talking *major* $$$ for 20"
multisync type monitors.)
Those points aren't in the order of yours, but hopefully some help.
========================================================================
From: Alan Silverman <ST102354@BROWNVM>
It is the model 1302. This is the SONY non-interlaced monitor which I
am now looking at. You can also consider a NEC monitor, which costs a
lot more only for automatically controlled horizontal/vertical
alignment. If you are considering buying a new system, it is
definitely worth (in my opinion) getting the 1024x768 monitor. Mine
is over 2.5 years old, and the price difference is a couple hundred.
The new 1024/768 super VGA adapters can be found for as lttle as
$130, and the regular VGA card is very close in price. My monitor,
the SONY 1302 is great, and so are the SONY 1304 and the Seiko 1450.
========================================================================
66 From: nletell@UWYO.BITNET (Nolan W Letellier) > > At the end
of the day, I frequently have a headache and sometimes feel > a
little giddy/dizzy/whatever. It may be no fault of the monitor or >
the computer system, but I don't feel comfortable about this at all.
> Since I am required to wear glasses for myopia (not much, though),
it's > possible that my eyes are responsible for the way I feel.
I have the same problem. I think something about staring at a
computer screen all day - regardless of the monitor or setup - is
most of the problem. Some systems are worse than others for me.
Green monochrome is the worst for me, then CGA. Generally speaking,
the better the resolution the less problems. As for interlaced /
non-interlaced, the flicker associated with interlaced screens
usually drives me nuts, even the old Macintosh screens were enough to
bother me.
> Anyway . . . I discovered, after a little reading, that for the new
> system I will put at home, it would be kinder to my eyes if I purchase
> a *non-interlaced* SVGA monitor instead of an interlaced SVGA monitor.
If you need SVGA, go with non-interlaced. VGA is quite good without the
huge expense or interlacing dilemma.
> 1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768,
> always non-interlaced? . . .
The Amiga 1000 (back in 1987) had a 640x480? interlaced mode. From what I
understand of things, interlacing allows manufacturers to use slower
components for high resolutions (only need to do half the screen per
frame).
> 3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a
> fact, or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
I don't know for sure, but I believe it to be fact.
> 5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? Users' favorites or
> critics' choices? . . .
I prefer VGA over EGA, but I have seen at least one VGA character set
which was hard to read (on an Emerson E??286??) If the character set is
properly done, the higher the resolution, the better.
========================================================================
From: Charlie Turner <CHARLIE@UMVMA>
I'm no expert on this but let me share my experiences. I have a Tatung
super VGA monitor on my home PC. This monitor (I can't recall the
exact model number) runs non-interlaced thru 800x600 but uses interlace
for 1024x768. This is a 14" monitor. At the office we have a few Goldsta
14" super VGA monitors. These seem to need interlace even for 800x600.
Windows on the Goldstar VGAs at 800x600 bothers my eyes with the flicker
Besides that, and this is true also on my Tatung monitor, the high
resolution video modes use very tiny character sets that are hard to
read.
A comment I saw recently in a PC magazine rang very true for me. It said
that one really needs at least a 16" non-interlaced monitor to enjoy
working with any resolution beyond the standard 640x480 VGA modes.
Unfortunately these big hi-res non-interlaced monitors cost almost as
much as the PC itself!
========================================================================
From: <ANTEK@TAMBIGRF>
>At the end of the day, I frequently have a headache and sometimes feel
>a little giddy/dizzy/whatever.
I was using 3 kinds of monitors: An IBM PC style interlaced (@ 1024x768)
ViewSonic 4, a non-interlaced workstation (12xx x 1024) and a regular VAX
terminal, VT320, I have no idea it is interlaced or not. And yes, I felt
tired when using the IBM one (I spent several hours on every one of them).
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768,
>always non-interlaced? That is, is interlacing something that becomes
>necessary to keep costs down for the 1024 x 768 display monitors, since
>the display density otherwise becomes too high?
"No" for the question about lower-resolution monitors, I've seen cheap
monitors, which interlace even the 640 x 480 mode. "Yes" for the
question about keeping the prices down.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical at higher
>resolutions (1024 x 768, 800 x 760, etc) and less critical at lower
>resolutions (640 x 480, etc.)?
No. Interlace works that way: you have the screen refreshed 1/2 of the times
it should be if non-interlaced, the hardware runs throgh 2 passes - in the
first pass it displays 1/2 of your screen (every even line) in the second
pass every odd line. So the time of refreshing the screen for the hardware
is still 1/60 (or whatever) but the EFFECTIVE time for you is 1/30.
If you can see a movie (in a movie theater, not on TV), the screen is
"refreshed" every 1/24 of a second. But the good quality remains untouched.
The possible sources of an error here might be the screen resolution:
the "odd" and "even" lines are displaced by a few dots. But it should cause
more visible errors on the LOW frequency (a straight line has tooth on it)
- if you can distinguish on the first look between two dots in the 1024x768
resolution mode, my congratulations - I can not.
So interlaced monitors work better on HIGHER resolutons. (Well, see, I'm
not a tech person, it is just my opinion :) To clear it: Non-interlaced is
always better, but going through the family of interlaced monitors,
if the resolution is higher, the difference to non-interlaced is lower.
3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a
fact, or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
There are some misterious things in human mind, not known perfectly right
now, about the light beeing switched on/off with the net frequency (60/50
Hz, depending of the country). For example the fluorescent bulbs are
switched 60 times per second - and I observed on myself, I'm getting very
tired sitting in the light of those bulbs, EVEN if the color of the light
is correct. (I asked about replacing bulbs over my desk in my lab and
after that I still prefer the day light or a "standard" bulb).
Probably there is "something" in the mind what interferes with the net
frequency - sorry, I'm a physicist, not a doctor :). I wonder, why
movies and TV is not affecting the eyes - but probably it is because
a standard person is not spending 8-10 hours watching them. The other reason
might be: when working with computers, we have quite always an additional
source of light, which is mostly "constant" (a sun light or standard bulbs)
One night I watched 2 movies on TV (in a room with all lights off) and I
got really tired after that. So that could be a reason.
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors other than the Sony
>1304 and the Seiko 1450? Where are they available and at what kind of
>bargains?
Look through the Computer Shopper and make some 800-xxx calls! :)
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? Users' favorites or
>critics' choices? What makes them so?
It depends of you are working with text or graphics. In the graphic mode
a resolution 1000 x 1000 (with antialiasing) is enough for me but of course
if higher, then better. In the text mode EGA resolution (15 x 8 ??) makes
me happy, 80 x 25 text screen is that one I prefer. On the UNIX workstation
I'm working with the characters 10x20 points are the best - that creates
a window 120 x 50 characters on a 23" (non interlaced) screen. I tried
smaller characters (7 x 13 dots in the above resolution) but they are hard
to read when one have 5 hours of edit after him. At home I tried VGA
characters in the 80 x 43 (?) resolution mode and that's not the stuff
I preffer.
>I would really appreciate knowledgable responses from people, . . .
Well, I'm not a professional - just had the experience with both of
them and I may split monitors into 3 categories:
1) Low-level, cheap stuff like CGA-driven monitors. Just do not use.
2) Middle level ($200-$1000) monitors working with VGA, interlaced or not,
using the net frequency to refresh the screen, the additional $200
for a non-interlaced stuff is the lost money - how often are you using
the 1024 x 768 mode ? If you are sensitive for the 60 Hz frequency,
you will also suffer from it using a non-interlaced stuff. The only
way is point 3, I guess.
3) High-quality monitors dealing with the resolution 4000 x 4000, not
available for a standard person at home, until one is an oil king.
(They cost > $1000). I got one in my work place and I can keep looking
at it all the day long without being tired. But well, they are not
on my level of prices :).
========================================================================
From: Steve Schmidt <S_SCHMIDT@HVRFORD.BITNET>
This is a late response, but I thought that I might as well send it
anyway.... I have recently purchased a 1024x768x256 SVGA card (Dyna
SpeedStar w/1meg) and a SVGA monitor (interlaced). The monitor drives me
crazy. I can't stand the flickering. It becomes pronounced at the border
between certain colors (red/blue, red/white etc.) It is so bad that I have
decided to send the monitor back and purchase a NEC Multisync 5D. The
price difference is only $100 (only!!, hah!!) but I feel well worth it.
The change will be welcome, especially since some software that I want to
run only supports 320x200 in VGA and 640x350 in EGA. The Multisync will
support the EGA mode as well as the VGA, while the current monitor will
not.
======================================================================== 88
From: val!ben@cs.utexas.edu (Ben Thornton)
>1. Are the monitors that have resloutions lower than 1024 x 768,
>always non-interlaced? . . .
Interlacing the video has the effect of halving the required bandwidth
of the video circuitry of both the graphics card and the monitor WHEN
compared with a non-interlaced video signal of the same vertical scan rate.
Less bandwidth does translate to lower cost of manufacture.
>2. Do the advantages of non-interlacing become more critical . . .
The only real advantage of interlacing is one of video bandwidth, as per
#1 above.
>3. Is the lower eye-strain associated with non-interlaced display a
>fact, or a lot of hype? Especially, from my perspective.
Actually the eyestrain factor is not as dependent on the interlaced,
non-interlacedness of the video, but rather is more dependent on
phosphor persistence, convergence, and vertical scan rate. The
apparent flicker of interlaced screens may be less objectionable to
some than non-interlaced screens, but the flicker is there just the
same if the vertical refresh rate/phosphor persistence is too fast.
Misconvergence is a very important factor when viewing high
contrast white/black text.
>4. What are some brands of non-interlaced monitors . . .
I can't answer that one, other than to say that the non-interlaced
monitors are usually non-multisync models that are targeted at the
workstation marketplace.
>5. Are there any *optimum* resolution levels? Users' favorites or
>critics' choices? What makes them so?
The optimum resolution levels are those that provide the smallest
pixel the MONITOR can resolve. Any more than that is wasted. Also,
the ratio of horizontal to vertical pixel count should be such that
the proper aspect ratio is maintained on the monitor. This would
provide so-called "square pixels".
Keep in mind that you can get a mighty nice looking interlaced display
if you choose a VGA (or whatever) adapter that scans the screen fast
enough vertically to reduce or remove the flicker effect.
========================================================================
From: SPGJAF@UCBCMSA (Joseph A. Faracchio {415} 642-7638 {w})
I have a Nanao 9070S it is non-interlaced at 1024x768 but I think if
I push it to its max of 1280xsomething then it switches to
interlacing. You have to ask whether it is non-interlaced >all< the
time. I think, some monitors switch to interlacing at the higher
resolutions (like 1024x768).
The 9070S is pretty nice at lower than 1024. It is a 31 dot pitch.
When I do crank it up to 1024x768 it is then that I realize I wish I
had gotten the 28 dot pitch model, which is the 9070U. It makes a
difference. The Nanao's are also rated very low in radiation without
being certified as suc h Of the two monitors you mention, I thought
the Seiko was ONLY interlaced (have you got it backwards?) or did
that change recently for Seiko? What I mean is, maybe there is a
different model than the 1450 you mention that is interlaced (1350?)
that you should avoid buying. P.S. the vga card has to be capable
of interlace/non-interlacing as well!!!!
========================================================================
From: GARY ROLLMAN <rollvax@uwovax.uwo.ca>
I can't give you any information about the relative merits of
interlaced and non-interlaced (NI) monitors, although I've been told
that the advantages of the latter occur at high resolutions.
However, I can tell you about a 386/33 system I've just ordered which
includes a NI monitor at no extra charge.
The machine comes from Gateway 2000, 610 Gateway Drive, North Sioux
City, South Dakota 57049. You may have seen their ads (too cute) and
reviews of their machines (generally outstanding) in major computer
magazines. The 386/33 lists for $3,195 with $ MB RAM, 64K cache, 2
floppies, 200 MB IDE hard drive, very fast video board with 1 MB,
1024 x 768 non-interlaced monitor (you should ensure that they supply
this), DOS 4.01, Windows 3, Microsoft mouse, etc. It seems like an
outstanding price for this machine. Thirty day money-back trial.
I ordered mine from a salesman who sounds like a very decent and
knowledgable salesman: John Ege, 800-248-2042, Ext. 5526. I usually
had to leave a message on his answering machine and he got back to me
in short-order. He was also willing to reduce the price by 3% as an
"educational discount."
Delivery time: about 2 weeks. A range of upgrades available at
excellent prices.
========= END OF FILE : NON-INTERLACED/INTERLACED MONITORS =============== mikep@mcs213h.cs.umr.edu (Mike Prather) (03/06/91)
I bought a Loop monitor. It advertises 1024x768 non-interlaced. The tech person at a local computer store said he found that hard to believe, as the monitor sells for $389. I don't have a non-interlaced card, so I decided to bring in my monitor to the store to have him hook it up to a card and see for himself (and myself). It synced up and worked fine. No flicker whatsoever. I could tell the difference between non-interlaced and interlaced, as I'd been using interlaced 1024x768 under Windows. I was slightly jittery. With the non-interlaced card he hooked up, a Trident 8900, it looked great. The Loop monitor has a vertical frequency of up to 100Hz and a horizontal of up to 48kHz. PC Mag (I think) suggested that a vertical rate of 70Hz will usually result in no noticable flicker. And the Trident 8900 card says that it requires that a monitor have a horizontal scan rate of 48-49kHz to work in non-interlaced mode, I believe. The non-interlaced monitors I've seen advertised seem VERY expensive. I'm very happy w/ the monitor that I ended up getting. The screen is a little too curvey, it'd be nice if it was a little flatter. But considering the money I saved, I'll live with it. Mike -- =========================================================================== Blasphemy is a victimless crime. mikep@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu Standard Disclaimer ===========================================================================