Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: NTSC standard
Message-ID: <237@fornax.uucp>
Date: Mon, 9-Mar-87 00:12:41 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.237
Posted: Mon Mar  9 00:12:41 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 20:27:11 EST
References: <8702260150.AA24233@ingres.Berkeley.EDU> <14144@sun.uucp>
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 28

> 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. 

If you can get three multi-bit d/a's with the necessary speed and linearity
for $150 I would like to hear where; something with at least 4 but
preferably 6-8 bits/channel

.
. 
> -- 
> --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.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSA
J
J