nope i know that :-D but i know that thread hijacking is not a nice thing either :-D that is the reason why i tried to change the subject so i can just delete the mails that has a subject i dont care for but oh well, if it does not work i can live with it 2017-02-20 11:10 GMT+01:00 HÁRSFALVI Levente <publicmailbox@harsfalvi.net>: > Of course you're free to do so, but (FYI) this is not an Internet forum. > > > On 2017-02-20 10:42, Bo Herrmannsen wrote: > >> i have changed the subject as it did not relate to my initial thread and >> got bored of reading things that i was not interested in >> >> 2017-02-20 10:00 GMT+01:00 <groepaz@gmx.net <mailto:groepaz@gmx.net>>: >> >> On Monday 20 February 2017, 09:55:11 HÁRSFALVI Levente >> <publicmailbox@harsfalvi.net <mailto:publicmailbox@harsfalvi.net>> >> wrote: >> > On 2017-02-20 08:26, groepaz@gmx.net <mailto:groepaz@gmx.net> >> wrote: >> > > On Monday 20 February 2017, 08:19:57 Gerrit Heitsch >> > > >> > > <gerrit@laosinh.s.bawue.de <mailto:gerrit@laosinh.s.bawue.de>> >> wrote: >> > >> On 02/19/2017 11:47 PM, HÁRSFALVI Levente wrote: >> > >>> Another addendum: Marko once measured the luma levels of >> different >> > >>> VIC-II chips in the same C64 motherboard, >> > >>> >> http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/documents/chipdata/ >> 656x-luminance >> <http://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/documents/chipdata/ >> 656x-luminance> >> > >>> s. >> > >>> txt> >> > >>> >> > >>> . I don't know how well the data practically holds, since the >> > >>> >> > >>> measurements have been done without using a standard 75 ohm >> load; yet, >> > >>> one thing seems to be sure: there are slight differences between >> > >>> different VIC-II chip revisions in the luma levels they >> produce. Maybe >> > >>> part of what I've seen has been a result of that. I can't >> speak of the >> > >>> other symptoms, I didn't make measurements myself. >> > >> >> > >> We have to remember that VIC is a bit of a mixed signal chip, it >> is >> > >> mostly digital, but also produces analog signals. I take it as >> a given >> > >> that there will be slight differences between VICs of the same >> revision, >> > >> even if they come from the same wafer, let alone from different >> > >> production runs where the process was tweaked over time. >> > >> >> > >> So measuring luma levels only counts if you have multiple VICs >> of each >> > >> revision you can compare against each other. >> > > >> > > indeed, some other ppl checked the luma levels in the past >> decades, and >> > > its >> > > always slightly different :) >> > >> > The question here would be IMHO whether there is a correlation >> between >> > VIC-II revision numbers and the luma maps the respective chips >> produce. >> > The rest (general phenomenon of output level variances of mixed >> signal >> > chips, general statements about measurement variances due to people >> > measuring video signals with different / generally inadequate >> equipment >> > etc. etc. etc.) is obvious. >> >> unfortunately, to find that out... you'd have to check quite a few >> chips. i >> dont think the existing data is even remotely close to draw this kind >> of >> conclusions. >> >> -- >> >> http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net >> <http://magicdisk.untergrund.net> >> http://www.pokefinder.org http://ar.pokefinder.org >> >> C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, >> but when >> you do it blows your whole leg off. >> <Bjarne Stroustrup> >> >> >> >> Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list >> >> >> > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2017-02-20 11:02:35
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.