> On 2017-02-20, at 16:33, smf <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On 20/02/2017 14:33, Justin Cordesman wrote: >> I agree that the issue with that old article is clearly that it is describing behavior of the scaler and quantization of the signals coming out of the 64 and cannot be relied on to describe the behavior of different revisions. > > If putting it through a scaler makes display noise more visible that is usually hidden with a combination of your crt, your eyes and your brain then it is perfectly valid to use that to determine which revision is better than any other. I wrote this a few times already now: If you pass the signal through an upscaler that handles such non-compliant signals gracefully, the differences don't show up that much if at all. When you pass it through one that doesn't, then you only determine, which chip revision/batch/wafer-position/... is "better" for the particular ADC/upscaler in use. I believe it to be very much possible that when using another upscaler, another chip/batch/wafer-position may come out as better. I haven't specifically tested various chips looking for subtle differences when using "good" upscalers but I used various VIC revisions with one and nothing was more striking than the difference between R1 and all the newer ones. Yet I agree that this is far from being "scientific". I shall find some time to do some more objective tests. Not only about luma levels ;-) -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2017-02-20 17:02:39
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.