Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!elroy!cit-vax!cit-vlsi!flaig
From: flaig@cit-vlsi.Caltech.Edu (Charles M. Flaig)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Video displays.
Message-ID: <6210@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 20 Apr 88 20:35:01 GMT
References: <549@zehntel.UUCP> <3467@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: flaig@cit-vlsi.UUCP (Charles M. Flaig)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 48

In article <3467@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>In article <549@zehntel.UUCP> donw@beaujolais (Don White) writes:
>>
>>     Wouldn't it be nice if ALL the current Amy NTSC graphics modes were kept
>>  as a SUBSET of the overall graphics capability? That way, it would still
>>  be THE desktop video machine, AND it could service those Hi Res-ophiles!
>>  (1000x800 grin, or 2000x2000 grin grin, or 1Meg x 1Meg grin of wooly
>>  mammoth proportions)
>
>The problem is, sport, that monitors in this range cost more than
>a used porsche.

You know, I never could understand why people want such high resolution color
monitors.  The *ONLY* valid application I can see for them is CAD, and very
few people need to do this at home.  And I think workstations should have
more Umph anyhow (I'm spoiled with a Sun 3/260, which is still too slow).

Think about it:  The times you need high resolution is when you are working
with several windows of text, or want to preview some laser printer output,
or similar applications when color isn't necessary.  High resolution mono-
chrome monitors are significantly cheaper than color ones.

The times you need color is when you are playing games, working on anima-
tions, or presenting information (such as maps) where color provides impor-
tant information.  When was the last time you saw a game where very high
resolution was a necessity?  With any reasonable update rate and memory
requirements, it's difficult to even fully utilize the capabilities of
a low resolution screen.  Similarly for animations, we still have a long
way to go in providing realism even at low resolutions without spending
days of high power CPU time, why strive for higher resolutions which 
require even more calculating time?  Besides, most good animations will
eventually target video tape, so 640x480 resolution is all you can use
anyway (of course I am assuming good filtering routines and a full 24 bit
planes of color).

Why not just provide two different displays, a high resolution monochrome
(with maybe 4-bitplanes) display and a low resolution (640x480 with 24 bit
planes) color display?  I wouldn't even mind having the color display
interlaced, that way you can get a better idea of how animations will look
on video tape.  If it flickers, you need a better filtering routine.

Arguments (no flames) welcome.

______________________________________________________________________________
  ___   ,               ,                                           ,;,;;;,
 /   Y /|              /|              Charles Flaig                ;/@-@\;
|      |/     __, ,__  |/              flaig@csvax.caltech.edu       | ^ |
|      /^\   /  | | |  /  /\  /\                                      \=/ 
 \____/|  \_/|_/\_/ \_/ \_\/_/_/_/     "What, you think they PAY me for this?"