Re: monitors & video cards

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >for horizontal frequency.  After having a look around the web at the
> >specs of various monitors I am yet to find one specifically advertised
> >at being "non-interlaced" - does anyone have any examples?
~
> interlace. It's also possible that the prominent use of the term
> NON-INTERLACED on the packaging is intended only to signify image quality,
> rather than anything else.

That's pretty much it.  In the olden days when VGA was wowie-zowie,
CGA was being used, and IBM still was a leader in IBM compatables, 
IBM came out with a display that was much higher resolution 
(FOO x BAR pixels).  BUT it was a hi-res interlaced display.  Because
of the low refresh, it was terrible.  So when monitors were sold and
they had high resolution "specs", it was *important* as to whether it
was an interlaced spec or not because most if not all of the high res.
specs *were* interlaced specs.  The world has since caught on, abandoned
the interlaced formats (Amiga was last bastion of interlacing) and now
use high-res displays that are high-refresh non-interlaced.  It's so
commonplace nowdays that non-interlaced is *assumed*.  You'll occasionally
still see "non-interlaced" or more commonly "NI" in the max-resolution
advertising hoopla, but the need for that is historical.

I just wait for the day when 3D is *assumed* in video devices...... :-)

Mike K.


------------------------------