Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!gbrown
From: gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: What to do with the GS
Message-ID: <1990Feb16.125522.9926@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 90 12:55:22 GMT
References: <900214.16355107.044715@UWEC.CP6> <1990Feb15.152154.22827@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <12154@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 26

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:

>I agree that more colors is important; however, apparent visual resolution
>is not much improved by increasing the color resolution; better spatial
>resolution is also required.  640x400 is roughly what a good NTSC TV set
>provides, and while not terrific at least it is about what the public is
>accustomed to seeing on CRT devices.


There is MUCH to be said for using NTSC compatible output!

1)You can use your TV as a cheap monitor (though low-res).

2)You can use your expensive NTSC monitor as an awesome TV when you add a VCR.

3)640*400 provides nice, almost square pixels.  Adjust the VHeight on the 
monitor and they become square.

4)Since your computer is already NTSC-based, you can cheaply use the computer
to modify video.  If you go non-NTSC, you'll fall into the Mac trap:  $3000
for a board to display TV on your $600 monitor.  (oh yeah, a $3000 24-bit
video card is required for that other $3000 frame-grabber to work.)

I really don't think the extra 80 pixels on the bottom of a 640*400
monitor are worth it:  I'd be willing to lose 1" off of the bottom of my
Mac II monitor if I could watch TV on it!