Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!doug
From: doug@eris (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Fixing flicker, & future frame rate issues
Message-ID: <8862@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 18 Apr 88 03:13:15 GMT
References: <11182@ut-sally.UUCP> <11255@ut-sally.UUCP> <2972@leo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: doug@eris.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 46
Summary: Quit flaming him, Harald

In article <2972@leo.UUCP> harald@leo.UUCP ( Harald Milne) writes:
> [Bryan wrote: ]
>> 	Jitter:  A perceived MOTION of an image COMPONENT due to PARTIAL
>> 	images being interleaved, as in interlaced displays.
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>For us normal Amiga types, this is called "Interlaced". It is also

That's what he said, Harald.

>> 	Now I claim the following:
>> 	-flickerFixer should really be called jitterFixer.
>Call it whatever you like, but for heaven's sake, go away.

Why not use your "j" or "k" (or "u") key, Harald. He's not flaming,
he's talking about a technical subject...who appointed *you* the
net censor? Why don't *you* go away? Or at least quit bothering us?

Very few people have been posting comments on this discussion that
Bryan and I have been having, so perhaps there's not a *lot* of interest
in the topic. That's fine...if you're not interested, don't read it!

FLAME ON:

And...it's interesting that this miniflame above ("go away") came from
someone who seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding the
subject at hand, based on his poorly thought-out rebuttals that Bryan
and I dealt with explicitly already. Perhaps he wishes we'd stop talking
about a subject that makes his brain hurt from the strain of thinking
about it.

For instance, just a couple of postings ago Harald *implies* (my
interpretation of his posting) that the problem of images breaking up
is an optical illusion that wouldn't occur if viewed in slow motion on
video tape. This demonstrates very thoroughly how little Harald understands
about either the problem, which we've analyzed in painstaking detail, or
probably human perception, too. I presume he *implied* this point, by asking
a question, rather than saying it directly, in order to put the burden
of proof on Bryan, knowing he (Harald) was on thin ice.

No big deal, he's not required to be intelligent or well informed or
to thoroughly read our postings that would help remedy the latter lacks.
Until he tells Bryan to shut up. At which point I take strong exception.

FLAME OFF.

	Doug Merritt		doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug)
			or	ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug