interlaced looks better than progressive for small text? wah? how the hell does that work..
It's simply a matter of the particular limitations of my particular hardware. With most monitors and resolutions, the main limitation on resolution is the physical size of the electron beam "dot". However, with Trinitrons this dot size is really small (it has to be due to the way Trinitrons work). The resolution limit in this case is somewhere else--the bandwidth limit of either the video card or the monitor's electronics. I'm not sure which.
You can think of the bandwidth limit as an indication of how quickly the electron beam can turn on/off. Below this limit, the beam can turn on/off quickly for sharp edges. Above this limit, the beam can't turn on/off quickly enough so you end up with shades of grey instead of black/white pixels. Near this limit, the edges between the pixels are blurred.
With interlacing, the speed at which the beam travels across the screen is halved. I find that 2048x1536@85i interlaced is very sharp. I find that 2048x1536@60 progressive is a bit blurry (and also, at 60hz the screen is flickery).
It took me a lot of tweaking to figure out the best compromize between resolution and flicker. In my case, an interlaced resolution was the best.
what requirements does ur monitor have to have to get stupidhighXstupidhigh I ? and does it actually look like progressive in terms of the space u get, and clarity..?
The monitor must be a CRT, and it must be capable of handling halfXhalf the desired interlaced resolution. For example, one of my monitors can handle at best 1024x768@60 progressive. This means it can also handle 2048x1536@60i interlaced. The result is very flickery, and not really useful. The size of the electron beam dot is so large that the resulting display isn't really any sharper or more detailed.
You need to have a refresh rate of at least 72hz before interlace flicker is reduced to usable levels. At 85hz, interlace flicker is virtually eliminated except for pathological cases (e.g. images with alternating black/white horizontal lines). I find that an 85hz interlaced display flickers much less than a 60hz progressive display.
and how do u find out if ur non-ati card supports it?
If you're using Windows, you can try using "Powerstrip" to customize an interlaced resolution. If it works...then great! However, I find that ludicrously high resolutions are not desirable in Windows. In Windows, I prefer a resolution of 1024x768 up to 1280x960, depending on how large the monitor is. Windows and Windows applications tend to be a pain to customize with large fonts (if at all). Theoretically, all font sizes are indexed to the dpi setting so all you need to do is increase the dpi. In practice, large fonts don't work very well in Windows.
and does this thread set a president that SPCR should support resolutions higher than 1280x1024 a lot better..?
I may be using 2048x1536, but I use Opera's zoom capability to view web pages at 200%. In effect, I'm web browsing at 1024x768, except with really smooth readable fonts.