CompuServe Messages

[continued] use) have some pretty impressive capabilities. Have you seen Pixel Paint Professional, Studio 32, ColorStudio, or PhotoShop? (OTOH, there are many more ray tracing programs for Amiga than Mac.) :::Cut and paste between video modes is acomplished by using a quick re-map function…Similar operations would be necessary between two 8-bit images with different palettes, not to mention transitions between 8 and 24-bit. It's easier to come up with 256 colors that will work well for 2 completely different pictures than to come up with 16 or 32 for that job, which is why I think it is less of an issue to combine two 8-bit images than two Amiga images. Further, when combining elements of different Amiga graphics, you also have to take into account that there may be a resolution difference between the two (320 x 200? 640 x 400? etc.), something that is not a factor on Mac. (As an aside, how easy is it to cut and paste between two HAM images? I don't know, I'm just curious.) The transition from 8-bit to 24-bit is completely different – there is no color re-mapping required, since all the color are always available, so the original palette can be maintained (every possible 8-bit palette is a subset of the one 24-bit palette). :::realtime animation is not possible on the Mac and even converting mere 8-bit images to NTSC is far more costly given that Mac displays operate at non-standard rates Here I agree that the Amiga is better, but the Mac is not as bad as you make it appear. Real-time animation is certainly possible on a Mac (II-anything). And you can get out to NTSC with a $399 (list) piece from Generation Systems, and a supposedly excellent piece from RasterOps for $695 (list), or even by pointing a video camera at the screen (that requires a $30 utility to get the scan rate in sync). But yes, the Amiga is stronger here. [continued in the reply]