CompuServe Messages

Good points, all. We think we can refer to our hardware as 24 bit the way that VGA is 18 bit; As for describing each pixel on the screen accurately in 18 bits, that depends on the image. We can (usually, like 99% of the time) do it for over 95% of the pixels. Some images are described perfectly. In addition, in our 18 bit mode, you can use up to 480 distinct _full 24 bit_ color registers in the same screen. That provides a lot of descriptive power. It's not full 24 bit, and it has one big drawback; it requires a lot of computation up front for the best image, similar to Amiga 12 bit HAM but more intensive yet. Finally, we do the best we can to utilize the 24 bit registers, specialized dither techniques, and the hardware we've created to render a full 24 bit image… You can only do this in RGB, because in NTSC you don't have access to the data on a pixel by pixel basis. Does it work, I hear you ask? Extremely well. We have sample images that you can render using the "pure" 18 bit mode. No registers involved at 24 bit, only 18, and no dither. You can clearly see faint contouring in the yellows and greens. Change to the 24 bit mode, and bingo – no contouring is visible. The color data is now displayed smoothly across what were 18 bit boundries, clearly visible (although MUCH fainter than 12 bit, like Amiga HAM). Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because the HAM-E uses a HAM mode, it has the same artifacting problems that Amiga HAM does. Amiga ham has only 16 fixup regs available to our 480 max; and Amiga HAM is 12 bits, too. Big Difference! HAM is hardware data compression – it is a form that _can_ lose data; you can easily describe a theoretical situation that the HAM-E could not render. Happily, that is not a situation that is common in image work. Best thing I can suggest is look at one, or call us at (800) TK-AMIGA and have a brochure sent to you. Look at the pics. I think you'll be surprised. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S