NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/sys/atari/st/12573

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-20 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!chaph.usc.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Juxtaposer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Falcon Resolution, Audio Sampling
Date: 20 Aug 1992 10:07:02 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Ken Newman) writes:
>
>>in Tramiel's
>>announcement on Genie, he said explicitly that the 640x480 mode, at least
>>with 16-bit colour (which is a great feature, mind you), is **INTERLACED**!
>>Sigh. This means some good things, as he mentioned, like the Falcon will
>>work on SC1224 monitors (as well as VGA monitors with higher scan rate).
>
>
>BEEP.  The SC1224 simply cannot handle such high resolutions - it doesn't
>HAVE 480 scanlines to use!  The VGA/MultiSync monitors will not experience
>the flicker - just as they don't on the Amiga.

    Hold on there partner - maybe you forgot just how that interlaced
stuff works - you scan the picture, skipping every other line of the output
video, and then fill it in on the next Vblank of the monitor.  In this way
you get a simulated doubled verticle size - but of course since the phosphor
of the monitor is "excited" in one frame different from the next (especially
if they are of different colors) you get the flicker effect.  I'm not certain,
but I think that there might be minor verticle displacements on alternating
video frames that are part of normal monitor operation - if so, this would
help the illusion that you have more verticle pixels, but you will still have
overlap and will still have flicker.  Of course, if the Falcon can output 16
bit color (colour for you Brits :) at a 640x480's frequency, then yeah, you
shouldn't have a problem on multisyncs - but who's to say (yet) that they
didn't skimp on the video circuitry so that it _can't_ do it (ie. it can only
output 16bit color at 640x240 rates).

>Me, I'm impressed that they even BOTHERED to support high-res on the SC1224.
>You'd be a bit crazy to buy an SC1224 rather than a MultiSync, considering
>the slight cost diff, compared to the value you will get out of the Falcon's
>higher resolutions.  The Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, and your SC1224
>will never handle 640x480 non-interlaced.

    Then again, the part of supporting the SC1224 was a _good_ idea.  After
all, remember - who will be a big portion of Falcon buyers?  They will be
current Atari users who probably have a SC1224 at home and are on a tight
budget.  Thus _all_ they have to buy is the Falcon if they already have a
monitor (granted, not top of the line) at home.  Not having to buy a monitor
is a BIG cost diff.  At least $300 worth.  And hey, you really should think
about that old "never say never" cliche'....

>Question:  will 1280x480 interlaced be possible with a MultiSync?

    I doubt it.  Since it looks like you are looking at a 640 max (monitor)
horiz. freq., there aren't that many more pixels you can squeeze into the
visable portion of the screen beyond the 732 that was mentioned.  More than
that will probably give you diagnal streaks accross the screen because the
gun isn't hiding fast enough during Hblank.

>--
>Warwick
>--
>  _-_|\      [e-mail]            /Disclaimer:
> /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /
> \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /      void (if removed)
>      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /

-juss Mike