Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!keithe%tekgvs%tektronix.csnet
From: keithe%tekgvs%tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: on interlace
Message-ID: <3629@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 02:07:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3629
Posted: Thu Sep 12 02:07:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:11:40 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 31

From: keithe%tekgvs%tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa


Subject: Interlaced monitor Date: 10 Sep 85 17:03:33 GMT Apparently-To:
info-amiga-from-usenet@RUTGERS


>> I can't figure out what an interlaced monitor is.
>> What will look better in the Amiga: 640x400, or
>> 640x200? Does it matter?

>The price one pays is flicker, since screen sweeps are only done 30
>times a second, as opposed to 60 times a second during non-interlace.
>Thus a higher persistance monitor is needed to eliminate flicker.

Well, not really... One of the *advantages* of interlace is that
flicker is reduced. A "half" frame is generated every 1/60 of a second,
but that half-frame is distributed over the entire face of the crt.
Then, 1/60th of a second later, the intervening lines are drawn for the
other half of the frame. (P.S., each half-frame is referred to as a
"field.") So the eye thinks it's getting refreshed 60 times every
second  - because it can't distinguish the separate lines - instead of
at a 30 per second, which would be very noticeably flickering.

Keith Ericson  at TekLabs (resident factious factotum)
Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383
Beaverton OR 97077
(503)627-6042
uucp:	 [ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|(and_many_others)]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe
CSnet:	 keithe@tek
ARPAnet: keithe.tek@rand-relay