Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.misc:365 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:2232 comp.windows.ms:5845
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mephisto!udel!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ee.rochester.edu!stanojev
From: stanojev@ee.rochester.edu (Bob Stanojevich)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: NEC 3D OK in interlaced 1024 x 768 ??
Message-ID: <1990Oct2.152122.25078@ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 90 15:21:22 GMT
References: <1618@mitisft.Convergent.COM> <1990Sep28.235629.15785@rick.cs.ubc.ca> <5061@hsv3.UUCP>
Reply-To: stanojev@ee.rochester.edu (Bob Stanojevich)
Organization: University of Rochester Department of Electrical Engineering
Lines: 50

In article <5061@hsv3.UUCP> jls@headland.UUCP (James Seidman) writes:
>I'll add in my $0.02 on this one as well...
>
>In article <1990Sep28.235629.15785@rick.cs.ubc.ca> e4666881@rick.cs.ubc.ca (richard louie) writes:
>>     The NEC 3D should not be ran too long in 1024 x 768 mode
>>because of the feature referred to as interlaced.
>
>This almost sounds as if you're implying that this can damage your monitor
>or something in some way.  Of course this isn't true.  The 3D is rated to
>handle interlace speeds just fine, for hours (days) on end.
>
>>     To get rid of this flicker effect, you can upgrade to the
>>NEC 4D or get the SEIKO CM-1450 or the Sony 1304.
>
>This is the part which I've heard far too often and is really misleading.
>(I've even seen ads from monitor manufacturers which seem to try to
>perpetuate this myth, and even ones that imply that you can get "ergonomic"
>refresh rates just by using their monitors!)  Many graphics cards out there
>*ONLY* support interlaced 1024x768 modes, for the reason that you don't
>have to run the card as fast to do it (meaning a less-expensive design).
>If you hook one of these up to a 4D, CM-1450, 1304, or any other monitor,
>you will *still* get an interlaced display.  It's the card, not the monitor,
>which controls screen timings, and make sure your card can do 1024x768
>non-interlaced before you plop down the big bucks for an expensive monitor.
>-- 
>Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer.
>UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls
>ARPA: jls%headland.UUCP@ames.nasa.arc.gov

 I have SEIKO 1440 monitor, PLATINUM 1 meg SVGA board (made by ACT Inc.)
and I am EXTREMELY picky about monitors. However, I must say that runnig
Window 3.0 in 1024x768x256 mode I could not see any flicker what so ever.
I used Windows Paint program to load 8-bit image and it worked fine.
I have never before used interlaced monitor because I hate them but the
combination I mentioned is really flicker free, to my surprise.

I am not sure but it seems to me that there is no point to have non-interlaced
monitor if the pixel clock frequency is smaller them 90Mhz since the
refresh rate will be below 50Hz-55Hz what is considered minimum for any
reasonable flicker free non-interlaced display. Many of high end displays
have 66 - 70 Hz refresh rate and that requires pixel clock of 120 - 150 Mhz
for megapixel display. So far almost all SVGA boards have clocks in the
range of 40-50 Mhz. I can not see how they can achieve better refresh rate
then 45-50Hz in non-interlaced mode with that clock speed..
-Bob Stanojevich
-- 
*****************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: I am entirely responsible for the content of this document,   *
* however, I am entirely IRRESPONSIBLE for any grammatical and/or spelling  *
* errors that might be found in this document.                              *