Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!phx.mcd.mot.com!teroach!stan
From: teroach!stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Commodore De-interlacer
Message-ID: <14047@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 15:29:43 GMT
References: <3766.658255715@lemsys.UUCP> <5597@crash.cts.com>
Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: teroach!stan@phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Group
Lines: 21
Summary:
Keywords:


>  In questions about which is better, the FlickerFixer or the 2320, the
>2320 will properly handle X-Specs. This means you can get LC 3D on the Amiga
>with the scan lines filled in, which looks much better. The FlickerFixer,
>although it handles the first scan line correctly, does not work with X-Specs,
>or any other LC 3D multiplex scheme. I have a FlickerFixer and had to wire
* stuff deleted *
>  John

That's very interesting... I assumed that the two boards performed
de-interlacing similarly.  Why would X-specs work on the 2320 and not the
flicker-fixer?  Maybe Scott can shed a technical light on this topic (or
John for tht matter).
I've got a set of Sega LCDs that I hacked into X-spec compatibles, so this
is an important consideration for my de-interlacer decision (I've already
pretty much decided to get the 2320 anyway. ;^))

						stan

  Stan Fisher -  stan@teroach.phx.mcd.mot.com  -  asuvax!mcdphx!teroach!stan
  Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Arizona   -   Voice (602) 438-3228