#Multisync/flickerFixer??
15 messages in this thread
Hello All,
I'm looking into what options are available to rid my Amiga of high resolution
flicker. I've heard this and I've heard that about WB 1.4, MicroWay's
flickerFixer and Multisync Monitors. I don't have enough solid information to
choose anything at all. Here's what I've "heard":
1) Microway's flickerFixer and a multisync look great (don't know
which multisync though)
2) Don't buy a flickerFixer yet because WB 1.4 specs haven't been
solidified and the new chipset might eliminate the flicker.
3) A multisync monitor by itself does improve the Amiga's high res.
mode a little bit. Not perfect but a little better.
4) If you do get a multisync, average specs should be:
a) 800 x 600 pixels
b) 14" diagonal screen size
c) 15-35 kHz horizontal frequency
d) 50-90 Hz vertical frequency
e) .31 pixel size (dot pitch) is average .28 is nice
(I assume that's .31 millimeters?)
f) $600
5) A VGA monitor would work fine with the flickerFixer and looks very
nice (especially one of Zenith's with an "X-Y tension screen") but
it may not be able to handle everything new that comes along (ie: WB1.4)
(Anyone care to elaborate on what Zenith's X-Y tension screen is?)
I'm really lost so any information at all will help. Thank you.
Oh, I'm not too familiar with the messaging system on Compuserve so if at all
possible send replies as E-Mail that will show up when I log on.
Brent Anderson
76424,3107
Brent,
I cannot give you a technical answer to all of your questions, but here are
some general ideas about them:
Commodore's new resolutions will give you flicker-free displays, but not with
all of the Amiga colors. If you want to continue to use all the current
options as to number of bitplanes, etc., you can do that with the flickerfixer.
The new resolutions from Commodore will be very limited in the number of
colors.
The flickerFixer really does look great, and with any multisync monitor to
which I have seen it attached. It is wonderful with the Zenith flat-screen
(though that is not multisync), but it is also great with others such as the
DiamondScan, the NEC Multisync, the less expensive Princeton Graphics Ultrasync
which I use, and with others.
The flickerfixer can work with more than one frequency, so it can work with the
VGA monitors, but it is my understanding that the new Commodore resolutions
will still not be at the VGA frequencies; thus you could only use those
monitors with the flickerfixer, even after 1.4 arrives.
The smaller the dot pitch, the finer the resolution of the screen. I believe
mine has either .26 or .28, though the .31 is more common.
Look in Computer Shopper for prices. Multisync monitors can be purchased from
about $400 up, if you shop well.
Betty
Betty,
Thanks. 🙂 The info. in the replies I've recieved from you, Ariel Butler and
Rick Moyer leave me with a much more positive idea about my options than what
I've been able to gleem from local Amiga dealers.
Based on your collective messages I am now considering:
1) Multisync over Zenith flat screen because VGA limits my options
(I'm wondering how much you paid for your Princeton Graphics Ultrasync,
where you bought it and what the specs are.
BTW: is DiamondScan Mitsubishi's offering? )
2) Rick Moyer's comment about a new hardware add on that's about $100 less
than flickerFixer is promising indeed. If anything, it'll give MicroWay
some competition which USUALLY leads to lower prices. (Unfortunately it
also means that I'll have to wait a little longer to see if M.A.S.T.'s
new FlickOFF is for real).
3) IF FlickOFF doesn't pan out, flickerFixer works great and I haven't heard
a bad thing about it (besides price) except… (thinking way down the
road now) when WB1.4 does come out and when software that supports the
new video modes catches my eye, I would then have to buy the new chips.
These chips could add up to as much $$$ as a flickerFixer right? Fatter
Agnes (to increase available chip RAM, I don't think I'd have to buy
any NEW RAM right away because I have 3megs total right now.) plus a new
Denise right?
Still to soon to make a decision but I feel much closer. If anything above
looks like faulty reasoning let me know.
Thank you,
Brent Anderson
76424,3107
Brent,
I bought my Princeton Graphics Ultrasync at SoftWarehouse in Dallas. Their
prices are usually comparable to those in Computer Shopper – which is an
excellent place to look for prices, etc., and is available at just about every
newsstand. I cannot recall the exact price, but it was in the range of $450,
as best I can recall. The Zenith was about $200 more at the time, and the NEC
about $100 more. This is a 12" version, but it suits me fine. Your work might
require a larger one. That Zenith was certainly beautiful, though!
The Diamondscan is the Mitsubishi one, but I had the impression that they might
be discontinuing it. It could have been that Soft WareHouse was not going to
stock it, though. I only know that they were selling out their remaining stock
as a closeout recently.
The hardware Rick mentioned is truly interesting. The flickerfixer is a
full-sized board that takes up the whole video slot. It would really be
interesting if they could replace all of that with one chip, wouldn't it?
You should also consider that you will probably have to have a special cable
for whatever monitor you choose, and that these are usually purchased through
Redmond. Most of those cables cost about $30-40, depending on the particular
monitor. Some monitors require a chip in the cable itself, making it a bit
more expensive. There is a file here in Tech, though, that
<continued>
<continuation>
tells you the pinouts for almost all multiscan monitors so that you can make
your own cable. It isn't difficult – my only soldering experience had been in
making a null modem cable, but I made this one with no problems once I had the
right pinouts.
Betty
…And there's a new product about to be released by M.A.S.T. called
"FlickOFF". It's a daughterboard which plugs into the socket your Denise chip
is seated in, and the Denise chip gets mounted on to a socket on the
daughterboard.
It's supposedly compatible with 500's/1000's/2000's, and will retail for $399,
and is supposed to be every bit as transparent to the rest of the system as the
flicker fixer is. As to compatibility with WB1.4 or with genlocks, I don't know
as of yet, but am supposed to recieve a spec sheet RSN.
-Rick
Rick,
The FlickOFF option adds a whole 'nother list of questions. If you don't mind,
let me know as soon as you get the spec sheet. Here's a couple
questions/comments that immediately came to mind:
1) Ariel Butler reminded me that Ami slows down the more colors you use.
Apparently the flickerFixer is able to do them quickly, no problem.
The new chipset would have the same slowdown. So I would have to assume
(granted this is a big assumption this early in the game) that FlickOFF
would go through the same rought as normal Ami video and would therefore
slow down just as much.
2) On the other hand it would probably retain that much more compatibility
with new stuff down the line. Unlike flickerFixer, which (from what I
gather) seems to do more of its own thing (especially since it's got its
own video output).
3) At any rate, unless FlickOFF really turns out to solve every problem, I
think I can get a flickerFixer for about $50 dollars more, I know
it works because several people have used them already, and I can get one
right away (computer guys are so impatient when it comes to new toys 🙂
4) Once WB1.4 arrives (which could truthfully be a long time) and if there's a
piece of software that really shines using the new chips I'd have to buy
the new Agnes and Denise(?) whether I had FlickOFF or FlickerFixer right?
And by that time I could probably afford them too.
I'm cheap enough to wait a little bit longer for the nitty gritty on FlickOFF.
What do you think a couple weeks maybe? Based on what everyone's been telling
me, I should be able to get a solid monitor for $500 out of Computer Shopper
(you have any suggestions on what brand?, model).
Thank you,
Brent Anderson
76424,3107
Well, when I talked to MAST, they said that they will probably be shipping
direct by December, and will have retail distribution set up by Febrary. The
$399 list price is just that…."list" price. Who knows what it will be
discounted.
Actually, the only thing I'm not sure of is compatibilty w/external genlocks.
-Rick
The 1.4 640×400 non-interlaced will slow down the computer the same as
the current 640×400 interlaced because you have fewer colors available.
— Ethan
Wrong-O Ethan,
Workbench is still 4 colors. The non-interlaced 640×480 will update 640 pixels
by 480 lines 60 times a second whereas the interlaced 640×400 only updates 30
times a second. That is where the 'flicker' comes from. So twice as much chip
ram bandwidth is used as normal.
So when the 640×480 non-interlaced 'productivity' mode is in effect, as much
chip ram bandwidth is used as 640x400x16 colors (more if you consider that
'productivity' mode has 80 more lines). There is an internal limitation that
cuts the palate down to 64 colors. The four colors possible is the maximum
number that would fit within the available bandwidth.
The net result is that a 640x400x4 Workbench (interlaced) would not slow down
the machine but the 640x480x4 'productivity' mode Workbench will drastically
slow down the machine. compensate (somewhat) for this. An application might
open a 640x480x2 color (monochrome) screen (say a DTP program) and your
statement would be correct.
-Greg
Betty is right. Basically, to get better video the one thing you should do is
get a Multisync monitor that handles both 15.75khz and 31.5khz horizontal sync.
This will give you the MOST flexibility for the future.
Then you need to think about what you will use non-interlace modes for. If
your intent is to have a 16-color, 640 x 400 Workbench up all the time, forget
about the new chipset. It can't do it. The most you can get is 2 bitplanes (4
colors), and the palette choices will be limited. It is also very possible
that running in even 4 colors will noticeably affect the speed of your machine.
A very similar effect can be seen now by running any program with a Med or High
res 16 color screen. That means that the only non-interlace mode that will be
practical for most application will be 1 bitplane, or two-color mode.
If you will be doing some CAD work, or DTP, this may be fine for you. If not,
you might want to consider the Flicker Fixer. The FF will do ALL the current
modes, up through HAM. It does NOT slow the machine down like the new chipset
does. Of course, there are two drawbacks: First, it costs about $500 to get
one. Secondly, since it doesn't support the new modes (yet) you'll have to get
a switchbox to switch between the Amiga video connector and the FF video
connector (if you want to use the new chipset modes).
For my own uses, the FF is the ticket. We own several of them, and have yet to
regret buying a single one.
Ariel
Ariel,
Thank you, your opinions are exactly what I was looking for. Now for some more
questions:
1) Ok, so 15.75 to 31.5 kHz horizontal frequency will be able to handle
most everything. Ethan Solomita (70137,3271) said that WB1.4 will
(probably) provide modes that have 1280 horizontal pixels and 800
vertical pixels (not simultaneously of course). Will 31.5 kHz handle
that much? And will 70 to 90 Hz vertical be able to handle that. $500
for the multisync monitor is my limit. I don't know anything but I
would bet that a monitor capable of 1280 horiz. and 800 vert. would be
more than the $500 range.
2) I probably don't need 16 color interlace. I would be satisfied with
two or four color 640 x 400 screens but I think WB1.4 is going to be
a long wait and the money is burning a hole in my pocket. Unfortunately
I'll have to buy a new Agnes and Denise(?) and WB1.4 software (when
they come out) to get res. higher than 640×400 (don't think I'll need it
though and I have doubts that I'll find a $500 multisync that does any
more than 800 x 600 pixels right?)
If you have any monitor suggestions (brand and model) feel free. Like I said,
I'd like to stay in the $500 dollar range and get 14" with .28 dot pitch.
Thank you,
Brent Anderson
76424,3107
Brent:
Yes, the new chipset ONLY provides 15.75khz and 31.5khz modes. The 1280
horizontal mode is provided, strangely enough, in the 15.75khz mode. As I
recall, the video controller has two parameters: Dot clock, and scan rate. If
you set the dot clock to slow, and the scan to slow, you end up with the normal
640 wide display that a 1084 monitor can display. If you set the dot rate to
fast, and the scan rate to fast, you end up with a 31.5khz 640 pixel wide
screen in non-interlace that only a multisync (or bi-sync) monitor can display.
However, if you set the dot clock to fast but the scan rate to slow, you end up
with a 1280 dot wide 15.75khz screen. In interlace, this could be a 1280 x 400
screen max. Note that I am not including overscan as part of this for
simplicity's sake. Also note that it's been awhile since I've perused the
docs. ;^) I've also heard you can get 800 pixels vertically, but I haven't
thought enough about that to figure out how.
As far as a monitor goes, once you have determined that it can handle the video
sync rates you can start considering things like dot pitch, convergence,
geometric distortion, color saturation, etc, etc.. I honestly don't know what
the best monitor at ~ $500 is. I think Steve Ahlstrom has an IMTEC he is very
fond of, and we use Mitsubishi AUM-1381's at work (which have nice color
saturation and a NTSC composite input as a bonus!). I have heard really good
things about the NEC 3D, but I believe that's about $100 too high (at least).
I guess the best thing to do is go out and look at a bunch of them locally, if
you can.
Ariel
You can get 640×960 (If you have a multisync, overscan is not a problem) by, in
your terminology, setting dot clock and scan rate to fast, and asking for
interlace (it flickers).
-Greg
Thanks, Greg, I had forgotten about the interlace mode.
Ariel
P.S. Ok, so I can't remember the appropriate terminology. <geeeeez> ;^)