7 Nov
1998
7 Nov
'98
3:26 a.m.
> Due a smaler coulour band signal. The slow colour
change
> is a real pain for movies but the 50 vs 60 Hz isn't
> visible, althrugh when used with computers, both are
> just bad.
I definitely notice the 50Hz vs 60Hz difference on my
computer.
It is visible when using a still picture like a computer
output. 60 Hz gives a more stable view, but on the other
hand, the poor NTSC coulour signal just damages the view
again, so again the result is bas - taking this and the
lower resolution (less horizontal and vertical lines in NTSC)
I'll prefer the flicker. THe best was still using PAL with
60 Hz - some homecomputers of the 80s could be programmed
for that - less flicker and high resolution and biliant
(or at least as briliant as a narow band colour signal
can be) colours.
I might
not notice it with a TV signal, though - I've never watched PAL
television. (But I've watched 50Hz 'EuroDemos' on the TV.)
EuroDemos ? Whats that ?
> This might not be true for the low price TV sets,
but
> any TV I (or friends of mine) had within the last
> 10 years could syncronize 60 Hz b&w and all (but one
> tested in 1984) could also display NTSC signals.
Our current television (JVC model no. AV-27965,
manufactured in 1995) will
definitely _not_ synch to 50Hz. This annoyed me. All of our old
tube-based monstrosities are perfectly happy with 50Hz.
But north American televisions are primitive relative
to European ones. I
would _really_ like it if they'd put SCART connectors on the sets over
here!
The funny thing is that Japaneese companies have also
stron sales in Europe - and use the same designs in
Europe and the US ... But as always, they add only as
many features as the 'local' companies offer.
Gruss
Hans
I used an SONY TV for the ATARI ST, 10 years ago.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK