Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!apple!sat!farren
From: farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Why?
Keywords: PAL, NTSC, Resolution, Graphics
Message-ID: <1991Mar05.190549.654@sat.com>
Date: 5 Mar 91 19:05:49 GMT
References: <1991Mar4.063042.8619@cs.UAlberta.CA>
Organization: SAT
Lines: 29

c315-25@cs.UAlberta.CA writes:
>This is probably a question that has been asked many times by many different
>people, but I would really like to know why PAL amigas have more scanlines
>than NTSC amigas.

Because PAL screens have more scanlines than NTSC screens do.  PAL and NTSC
are television broadcast standards - in Europe, most color TV is PAL,
and in America (and Japan) most color TV is NTSC.  Just thank the ghods that
they didn't decide to also offer both SECAM modes :-)

>Why didn't they make them the same?

Well, if they did, then one of them wouldn't be standard.  There are many
reasons why adhering to a standard is better than not - the ease with which
Amigas can be used as broadcast video sources is one.

>From a software designer's point of view, wouldn't it have been easier
>to have the resolutions be the same?

Yes, but that is easily handled.  If the PAL designers wouldn't automatically
assume a 512-line screen, but would design their products to run in 400
lines, there'd be no problem at all.  (I only say that because it's a lot
easier to design for a smaller screen than you have than to design for a
bigger one - no way to get around that one!)
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael J. Farren                                      farren@sat.com |
|                        He's moody, but he's cute.                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+