Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!socrates.ucsf.edu!hatton
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Hi-Res VGA boards & Monitors
Message-ID: <14847@cgl.ucsf.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 90 00:03:38 GMT
References: <1990Jul27.052426.27554@nmt.edu> <1990Jul31.082455.9624@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> <1990Aug1.130405.25625@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@cgl.ucsf.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Graphics Laboratory, UCSF
Lines: 37

In article <1990Aug1.130405.25625@maytag.waterloo.edu> dmurdoch@watstat.uwaterloo.ca (Duncan Murdoch) writes:
>In article <1990Jul31.082455.9624@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) writes:
>>
>>I would recommend choosing a monitor that supports a particular resolution when
>>NOT interlaced.  I believe, for example, that the nec 3d is interlaced.
>
>Strictly speaking, it's the video card that decides whether the image will be
>interlaced or not.  However, there's a certain upper limit to the resolution
>achievable on a given monitor in non-interlaced mode, and usually a higher limit
>if interlacing is allowed.  The NEC 3D is perfectly capable of 800x600 
>non-interlaced, and has a maximum rating of 960x720 (I think) non-interlaced.
>It handles 1024x768 fine in interlaced mode, and is reportedly able to
>handle it non-interlaced too:  I don't know, because my ATI VGA Wonder card
>only provides the interlaced mode.
>
>Has anyone else tried non-interlaced 1024x768 on a 3D?
>
>Duncan Murdoch


The 3D is not capable of 1024x768 non-interlaced according to the NEC specs,
but there are those who have been able to get an occasional one to run at
this resolution non-interlaced. As with most hardware, running beyond the
specs probably shortens the useful life of the item. 
 
If you really want 1024x768 non-interlaced, the Seiko 1450, Sony 1304, and
one by Panasonic (#?) will do this fine, without being pushed. 

On the other hand, 1024x768 on a 14" screen is tinytexttime; you probably
want a 16" monitor anyway. Or, I should say "one" would want 16" monitor,
since this not to the original poster.


And of course, you have to have *both* the monitor and graphic adapter
capable of non-interlaced.

P.S. At present, I prefer the 800x600x256 non-interlaced mode.