pre2306@cuphub.cup.edu (03/07/91)
I'm considering purchasing an SVGA card and screen. But, I have some questions I need to have answered. What is the difference between "multisync" and "multiscan"? Do "non-interlaced" screens really look better than "interlaced"? Any help would be great! JEP
lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) (03/10/91)
In article <15336@cuphub.cup.edu> pre2306@cuphub.cup.edu writes: > > I'm considering purchasing an SVGA card and screen. But, I have >some questions I need to have answered. > > Do "non-interlaced" screens really look better than "interlaced"? Yes! Interlaced produce flicker! Just stay away from anything with the letters IBM on it! Bryon Lape
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar10.041832.25758@cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes: >In article <15336@cuphub.cup.edu> pre2306@cuphub.cup.edu writes: >> >> I'm considering purchasing an SVGA card and screen. But, I have >>some questions I need to have answered. >> >> Do "non-interlaced" screens really look better than "interlaced"? > > Yes! Interlaced produce flicker! > I think that that the latter statement is a little too terse. I just got an Orchid Pro II card which I run in 768x1024 interlaced. A friend has a monitor that he run with the same card NON-interlaced. My interlaced setup produces a small fluttering effect when there are fine details with an odd number of scan lines between features. However, broad details - like white backgrounds in Windows- do NOT flicker. To see this best run Windows 3.0 and set your wallpaper to "weave"!!!! Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On his noninterlaced setup there is no small-element flutter but large bright areas flicker very badly. Apparently this card in non-interlaced 768x1024 mode simply has too low a vertical scan rate. I would say that overall the non-interlaced is best, but you need to set Windows so that the majority of the area is dark. This is really only a problem if you use a program that does 768x1024 graphics and uses a bright background: Microsoft Windows does this. [Advertisement: If you use Windows get one of the nice astromomical images I posted on c.scs.uiuc.edu -- Orion and Horse are very nice. Neither flickers at all.] ******************************************************************** Incidentally, have you noticed how well Windows 3.0 manages to get one full 256 color image represented using some other image's 256 color colormap?? The is truly impressive!! The color astrophotos as well as other pictures even come out looking very good if the palette is turned to 64-level grayscale. I am impressed. ******************************************************************** > Just stay away from anything >with the letters IBM on it! > > I agree with that. Doug McDonald
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/12/91)
In article <1991Mar10.161342.3@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: > >I think that that the latter statement is a little too terse. I just >got an Orchid Pro II card which I run in 768x1024 interlaced. A friend >has a monitor that he run with the same card NON-interlaced. > >My interlaced setup produces a small fluttering effect when there are fine >details with an odd number of scan lines between features. However, >broad details - like white backgrounds in Windows- do NOT flicker. > >On his noninterlaced setup there is no small-element flutter but large >bright areas flicker very badly. Apparently this card in non-interlaced >768x1024 mode simply has too low a vertical scan rate. This must be your friend's monitor. I have the Orchid Pro II running 1024x768x256 with a Sony 1304HG monitor, and I have absolutely NO flicker at all. It's rock solid.