home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!staccato.rutgers.edu!xchen
- From: xchen@staccato.rutgers.edu (Xinghao Chen)
- Newsgroups: misc.forsale
- Subject: interlace vs. non-interlace
- Keywords: interlace vs. non-interlace
- Message-ID: <Jan.26.14.00.13.1993.8873@staccato.rutgers.edu>
- Date: 26 Jan 93 19:00:14 GMT
- Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
- Lines: 29
-
- Hi there:
-
- I am in the market for a large screen (15" or up) color monitor for my
- 486SX/25. I had a chance to compare two same brand 14" color monitors
- the other day. One is interlaced and the other is non-interlaced.
- Both were 1024X768 with .28 dot pitch. I could not see any difference
- in terms of clarity, color etc. I ran winows 3.0 and some games on the
- two.
-
- The reason that I ask for your help is that there is a big difference
- in the prices. The interlaced color monitors are much cheaper that
- those non-interlaced.
-
- My application will be mainly in windows' applications, some image
- capture and a relational data base application. I like to get a 15" or 17"
- flat scree with .28. I like to know whether interlaced and
- non-interlaced will make a big difference in terms of clarity and
- resolution. If there is none, I may just get interlaced and save some
- money.
-
- Also, OPTIQUEST has discount on its' 17" .31 dot pitch color monitor,
- non-interlaced. Compare to its .28 dot pitch brother, the price cut is
- about $400. The 17" .31 has 1280X1024 on resolution and 76Hz refresh
- rate. The H scan frq. is 30-60KHz. It costs $730. The .28 dot pitch
- brother would cost some $1150. Any option on these two monitors?
-
- Thanks a lot. Please reply by email.
-
- -Chen xchen@caip.rutgers.edu
-