> > The total memory bandwidth is 1.6*10**9 pixels per second, while the 
> > max video for one head is only 330*10**6.
> > 
> >> Note that in theory if we use shunt peaked video out buffers that 
> >> #2 would be twice #1 for analog video but it would be normal to 
> >> have an additional frequency margin.
> 
> NO, that is wrong pixel resolution is twice line resolution so it would
> theoretically be 1/2.  I am always confusing that.

Yes, I believe in TV style video, "lines" really means "line pairs"
(e.g. a black line plus a white line) if you are talking about horizontal
resolution, but the same as pixels if you are talking about vertical
resolution.  Nice and confusing.

> Yes the bandwidth of the analog video amplifiers.  So, if we are going
> to have a max pixel clock rate of 330 MHz, do we really do need the
> 1.8GHz video amp for maximum sharpness.  Also, we should consider the
> specs of available monitors since there isn't much point in having a
> bandwidth significantly wider than the monitor.  Unfortunately, most
> companies don't seem to give out the bandwidth of the monitor's video
> amps.  Monitor specs seem to include: "Maximum Input Video Bandwidth"
> and I don't know if they mean digital (dot clock) or analog (video amp).
>     I think that they mean dot clock which tells us nothing.

>From what little I can figure out, a CRT monitor's bandwidth is probably
not the limiting factor.  More likely the limiting factor is the ability
to focus the beam tightly, and/or the pitch of the mask.

> And next question, is the monitor input 50 ohm or 75 ohm.  RS-170 is 75
> ohm.  The schematic shows a 49.9 (standard 1% value but some suppliers
> also sell actual 50s) ohm termination resistor.  I think that this is an
> error, it should be 75 ohm for R90, R100, & R110.

My notes say that computer monitors are 75 Ohm.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)

Reply via email to