Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news
From: alex@teeth.demon.co.uk (Alex Amsel)
Newsgroups: scea.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics,scee.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics
Subject: Re: high-res?
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:08:45 GMT
Organization: Into Beyond
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <346833af.6384239@news.playstation.co.uk>
References: <63vuoq$852@scea> <34638347.16036238@205.149.189.29> <3464C9CB.F465379D@msu.edu> <3466CCE0.DE1@dial.pipex.com>
Reply-To: alex@teeth.demon.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: teeth.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.335
Xref: chuka.playstation.co.uk scea.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics:275 scee.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics:188

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:59:12 -0800, Chris Chadwick
<xjk18@dial.pipex.com> did quoth at me:


>I dont know about you lot in the US etc. - with 60hz NTSC - but the
>interlaced modes on 50hz UK PAL aren't very attractive. You can
>actually see the screen image jiggling up 'n' down by a scan line
>every time the screen is updated. This gives the whole display a
>rather annoying 'shimmering' appearance. yuk!

Varies hugely from person to person. One guy I knew simply couldn't
use an Amiga that ran at 50fps, yet I had to get used to a hires
interlace display as I originally had a 1084 monitor and it couldn't
do decent refresh rates. Anyone got a spare 1084 (ish) monitor BTW?
Mine is on it's last legs...

50-60 fps is quite a difference for most people I'd say.

Personally I think lo-res is fine because tvs do a lot of aliasing for
you.


Regards, 

Alex Amsel

+ Tuna Technologies + Telephone & Fax +44 (0)114 221 0686 +
+ For all your Win95/NT/Console Game and Tool Development +
+ And we say, "A good programmer always blames Microsoft" +
+ I proclaimed "Bring back the Doog!", and so it was done +