Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!att-ih!pacbell!ames!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: MCGA/VGA 320X200 256 Color mode
Message-ID: <45900125@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 27 Apr 88 14:32:00 GMT
References: <496@sdics.ucsd.EDU>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:sdics.ucsd.EDU:496:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:45900125:000:1189
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Apr 27 09:32:00 1988



>"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

>Yes it would be impossible to generate crips text on such a display,
>but I think you're missing the point. The MCGA low-res was meant for crisp
>graphics not text. When using the low-res, you're not restricted to simply
>dithering with 16 colors. I recommend taking a look at some of the digitzed 
>color pictures for MCGA which are floating around. Being able to generate text
>on MCGA would be nice, but you already have the VGA mode for it. 

I have looked at many digitized images displayed in mode 19. When 
looking at them from a normal distance, say 15 or 20 inches, they look
awful. All those little square pixels and all those jaggies look
really bad. My complaint is that IBM put enough memory on the VGA to
get 256 colors AND 400x640 resolution! This isn't going to be a 
problem with most add-in VGA cards, which probably will do 400x640/256,
just with the ones that come with PS/2's. 

As an aside, have you looked at digitized pictures at 
1024x1280x2^24? THAT looks nice! What I really like is the resolution
I get with my camera, which is 5000x6250x(about 2^30) (okay, its
4inchx5inch Ektachrome).

Doug McDonald