js@cimmeri.com wrote: > Alex Freed wrote: >> S-video is only different from composit video in one respect - the color >> information comes on a different wire than the luminance. The way video >> is generated in apple 2, they are inherently mixed. So it doesn't matter >> much if you try to separate them at the computer side rather than inside >> the TV. A modern TV will likely do a better job with a comb filter. > > The Apple II/+ was designed for composite or RF, and likely would > best be utilized there forever. But, looking at the schematics for > the Apple IIgs, I found that they used an MC1377 Color Television to > Pal/NTSC encoder chip after the VGC. The VGC supplies RGB+Comp/Syn > to the RGB connector directly, and also supplies the MC1377 for > eventual composite video output. > > Looking at the specs for the MC1377, there is revealed some circuit > mods to allow this same chip provide S-Video! The specs also discuss > the comb filter idea mentioned by Alex above. But, the s-video sounds > like a very interesting prospect. S-Video on my vid equipment is > significantly better than composite. Does anyone have a feel if it > would be adequate for 80col display? > > My aim here with all the VGA stuff is not to get VGA resolution, > but rather, to find a monitor that will work with the GS down the road, > after these 1986-1988 RGB monitors die. Prospects look dim so far. > Hooking up the IIGS to even my composite input LCD TV, produces > horrible results. CRTs seem best. CRTs made now use S-Video. > > ~ J > Why not just get all the video information from ram / softswitches and generate VGA signal on the card? V/R Mark Frischknecht -- si vis pacem, para bellum http://www.appleiiguy.net Apple ][ Forever!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature