Am 01.05.2018 um 20:55 schrieb Thierry Godefroy via Ql-Users:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 19:26:56 +0200, Peter Graf via Ql-Users wrote:
>
>> Most flatscreens misunderstand the signal as 800x600, leading to bad
>> interpolation.
>
> Among the 3 LCD monitors I own, only the latest is able to (badly)
On Tue, 1 May 2018 19:26:56 +0200, Peter Graf via Ql-Users wrote:
> Most flatscreens misunderstand the signal as 800x600, leading to bad
> interpolation.
Among the 3 LCD monitors I own, only the latest is able to (badly) sync
the Q60 video signal and it does as if it would be a 640x480 VGA mode
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Peter Graf via Ql-Users <
ql-users@lists.q-v-d.com> wrote:
> Dave Park via Ql-Users wrote:
>
> > What are the frames per second and number of lines in the image?
>
> Originally 72 Hz, 512 visible lines.
Even just counting the visible pixels, the upgrade
Dave Park via Ql-Users wrote:
> What are the frames per second and number of lines in the image?
Originally 72 Hz, 512 visible lines.
> What 'legal' signal is it most similar to?
At design time it was fine to use any legal resoltion of a multisync CRT
monitor. The idea was to stay at the
I have delved into video conversion and signal processing in some detail
for the QL, I have a few questions about the original signal:
What are the frames per second and number of lines in the image?
What 'legal' signal is it most similar to?
Is it possible to alter the frame rate, and/or to
Hi all,
> I have developed an alternative video controller for Q40 and Q60:
I've been testing this for a few months now. At last I can use the Q60
with a more modern flatscreen with VGA and 1024*768 resolution.
The image is correctly displayed, but the bottom third of the monitor
remains
Hello,
I have developed an alternative video controller for Q40 and Q60:
http://qlforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2=2434
All the best
Peter
___
QL-Users Mailing List
