🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1gu8d9INN8qf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
>If I'm incorrect, please feel free to post. :) 

Heh. Wouldn't dream of doing anything else...   }-)
>384x480 overscanned
>
>There would be hardly a flicker on a TV even with this resolution
>interlaced.
>
>640x400
>768x480 overscanned
>
>There may be a small flicker when using graphics on a TV--no one really
>knows how bad it may be.  Any developer care to test it?

I still don't understand what you're thinking. Any visible flicker would be
identical in both of these modes (320x480 and 640x480). As I already mentioned,
it is only noticable for single-pixel thickness horizontal lines. All of the
info I've posted on this subject is from first-hand experience. There is nothing
to "test" about it. If you draw a lot of horizontal lines, they'll look pretty
bad, unless the line color and background color have similar luminance. This is
a simple fact of interlaced video.
>
>I am NOT sure if 320x480 (normal), 320x240 (line-doubling),
>640x480 (normal), and 640x240 (line-doubling) can be displayed on a TV
>or a SC1224 monitor OR if they can be interlaced.  The information
>from John Townsend makes it unclear.

All resolutions can be displayed on a TV. Line-doubling is a feature used to
adapt the low resolutions to the high VGA scan rate and is meaningless for
the TV. The 200 (240) row modes are non-interlaced. Period.
>
>It is CLEAR that 2 Megs would be more appropriate as the minimum amount
>shipped with a Falcon030 if Atari wishes to make the Falcon030 an
>excellent game platform.

Personally I would go with 4 meg as the bare minimum.
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

All true wisdom is conveyed in one-line witticisms.