Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ptsfa!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!sun!cmcmanis
From: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: NTSC standard
Message-ID: <14144@sun.uucp>
Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 13:35:07 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.14144
Posted: Thu Feb 26 13:35:07 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 06:17:18 EST
References: <8702260150.AA24233@ingres.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Mtn View, CA
Lines: 27
Summary: Baloney, and more Baloney

In article <8702260150.AA24233@ingres>, Doug Merritt writes:

> Settle down; there's no reason to get antsy. There are several
> problems with supporting 640 x 400 noninterlaced, but the digital
> half of it is relatively easy. The biggest problem is that monitors that
> can do this cost about $2000 by themselves. Thus very little of the Amiga
> audience could afford even the monitor, let alone monitor plus more
> expensive graphics circuitry.

Ok, enough of this misinformation. Color 640 X 480 non-interlaced monitors
cost about $600 (this is the NEC multisync), high persistance phosphor
monitors cost about $1k (except for the new Amiga monitor which is $500).
To effectively de-interlace the display you need a frame buffer and 
A/d and d/a chips and some clock circuitry. Building one is on my list
of projects. I expect it to cost about $150. 

> This adds up to saying "Hey, it's not Commodores fault...it's just that
> such technology is expensive. Price a color Sun workstation, for instance".

A Sun has a resolution of 1152 X 900 pixels, those monitors cost some
serious bucks. 


-- 
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis   BIX: cmcmanis  ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.