[Coco] 384 or 450 scanlines ?

[Nick Marentes]

Arthur Flexser <flexser at ...> writes:

> 
> Thanks for the explanation, John.  I'm curious, though, about why the
> 6847 non-interlaced VDG was chosen for the CoCo rather than the 6847Y
> interlaced version.  And, would a 6847Y VDG work if you replaced the
> 6847 in a CoCo with it?


And I thought that the interlacing was fixed in the TV/monitor of an
interlaced set. That a monitor always provides 525 lines interlaced (NTSC).

That's why I thought the CoCo had to provide either 2 fields or 1 field and
a blank field to satisfy the interlaced function of the monitor.

I guess it makes sense that the early video game systems and TV's would just
create a single 262 line display that is repeated. I didn't know that the
TV/monitor could stop creating the interlaced field.

Nick