> On 2017-02-19, at 20:43, smf <email@example.com> wrote: > > On 19/02/2017 13:12, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >> Could you elaborate/describe the difference? It's been some time since I tried those (and it was not in the '466 either) but I didn't notice anything striking. The R1 with its luma levels makes a noticeable difference but the later ones? > > http://www.breadbox64.com/blog/the-lumafix64-mod/ > > "On the positive side, images produced by the MOS 6569R5 graphics chip left the rest of the test chips in the dust! This chip showed far less vertical stripes, less smearing and checkered patterns. " Well, but that seem to be taken out of context. The full context (and a few lines above) is: "In general terms, no obvious differences were found among the different chips regardless of revision and motherboard used." Which is exactly my experience with display/converter devices that handle the non-compliant signals gracefully. Only then: [...] "repeating everything on the modern plasma TV, everything changed! The images were downright horrible " [...] "On the positive side, images produced by the MOS 6569R5 graphics chip left the rest of the test chips in the dust! This chip showed far less vertical stripes, less smearing and checkered patterns. " This really depends on the "modern plasma TV" and how it handles non-standard signal. I have seen converters that do terrible job at that (probably like his plasma TV) and such that do a decent job. > Also the DRAM timing was fixed for the C128 and then the R5 VIC2 came out after that, earlier revisions required production to add random capacitors until it appeared to work good enough (until it got warm). But that's valid for the C128 only, isn't it? And doesn't affect the vision much, I presume. -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2017-02-19 22:01:11
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.