CompuServe Thread

#24 bit graphics

67 messages in this thread
#8074From: Andrew HobbsDec 5, 1990 6:15 PM
To anybody out there who has used a 24 bit framebuffer/graphics board. I need to find out what's available and how good it performs. None of the Amiga mags have covered these yet, except in passing, and none have made a price/performance comparison yet. Anybody have some feedback? Thanks, Andrew HObbs
#8155From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 2:37 AM
There is only one 24 bit framebuffer available at this time; that is Impulses "FireCracker". We offer an 18 bit device, and NewTek offers a composite device which they bill as 24 bit, although it is composite NTSC only. DCTV from Digital Creations is also supposed to ship right about now, it may even be out like yesterday, and is also a composite device billed as 24 bit. I'm not going to give you a long spiel, because I'm rather biased :^) but I think we do quite well. Prices range from approximate 1500$ range (FireCracker, Toaster) down to $300 (our device). Good luck. You should get some specific answers here. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8180From: Andrew HobbsDec 6, 1990 1:30 PM
Thanks Ben! I hope to get some good results here. I had DCTV on order, but then saw a non favorable review in a mag. Now I'm kicking myself! I'll probably reorder it. I have seen HAM-E, and I'm impressed, but I'm looking for something that'll let me do 24 bit graphics, animations using Imagine. Later, Andrew Hobbs
#8212From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 4:45 PM
Andrew, HAM-E will let you do 24 bit graphics animations using Imagine, and furthermore, it'll make MUCH better images than DCTV could ever do.. it's RGB, you see. If you turn the HAM-E output into composite, well then it looks about like DCTV does. :^) Bit it will certainly animate as well as, or better than, DCTV using Imagine. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8331From: Andrew HobbsDec 7, 1990 1:56 AM
WHOA….. From everything I've read, HAM-E is a 18 bit graphic board. Also I wish to output to composite….I also want to be able to digitize. Now I'll admit that since you've put out HAM-E that you could probably tell me why I've read it is a 18 bit system. What I want to do is create 24 bit animations and output them onto either S VHS or Hi8 tape. That'd be easy with DCTV. Rather more involved with Firecracker or with HAM-E. I've already got a 20" monitor/tv to use with DCTV. Now I'm just waiting for it to ship. Thanks anyway, Andrew
#8414From: Ben A LottDec 7, 1990 9:53 PM
If you want S-Vhs or Hi-8 it's NOT easy with DCTV as it only has composite out If you use the Ham-E you can attach a true S-encoder (around $120) and get true S-video Resolution (over 400 lines when recorded, if you use DCTV throuh compsite expect 230 lines) and better color (reds and blues will smear much less). Digitizing? Well DCTV does indeed have the advantage there, but if you already have digiview, you can use it with the Ham-E directly with Black Belt's included software. BTW I have an NTSC and S-video encoder, S-video is much better to my Hi-8 than composite from DCTV (they let me record direct from it at a show) and I have some of the same pictures that they had at a show rendered in Ham-E , Ham-E wins hands down in Hi-8 format. BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8590From: Black Belt SystemsDec 9, 1990 12:30 AM
Andrew. The HAM-E presents a mix of 18 bit and 24 bit pixels in it's highest number of colors mode. Our renderer will generate images that are visually, on an RGB monitor, darn close to, if not exactly the same as, a full 24 bit system. Once you go to composite, this will make NO difference. DCTV is not, never was, and never will be a 24 bit output system, and _–> neither is anything else when you go to composite!!! The HAM-E can generate every bit as nice an image as DCTV can, and supports numerous types of operations that DCTV cannot. S-VHS is also not available from DCTV, as far as I know. Only composite. You can go S-VHS with the HAM-E, for instance with the DigiFEX VIP encoder, about $100 or so. And the HAM-E S-VHS output is _far_ better than the DCTV composite output. Just so you know. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8614From: Greg TynerDec 9, 1990 5:26 AM
I have been reading about the HAM-E online. Is it a card or what? I have a DCTV on order. Correct will be on order until I cancel monday. have an Thanks Greg Tyner 73527,2215 /exit
#8661From: Black Belt SystemsDec 9, 1990 5:52 PM
The HAM-E is an external unit, in just the same way that DCTV is an external unit. Before you cancel, you need to ask yourself if you require the digitizer that DCTV provides. If you do, there is no comparable facility built-in to the HAM-E. We _suggest_ the use of a DigiView, which will digitizer far better images than DCTV can (and we can _show_ them to you that way), but there is a catch – DCTV can take images from a composite (still frame, like a camera) source, while DigiView can only take images from a monochrome source. It can provide you with very nice RGB images on your current monitor, assuming only that you are not using a VGA-only type of monitor with a flicker fixer or the ICD FFV. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8700From: Greg TynerDec 9, 1990 10:49 PM
Thanks for the information. I have Digiview. Just thought of something, will HAM-E increase colors on DigiView?
#8720From: Black Belt SystemsDec 10, 1990 3:18 AM
The HAM-E will render images to the 21 bit precision that DigiView handles internally. The images look so much better than the stock DigiView HAM, it's almost funny to see. After a few images, it's *very* unlikely you'll ever save anoth er DigiView HAM image unless you need to give it to someone w/o a HAM-E. ALso, you don't have to save the DV image. The HAM-E will render the image right out of memory without an intervening file. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8637From: Andrew HobbsDec 9, 1990 1:08 PM
Thanks Ben. I need to know this stuff for future reference. Later, Andrew
#8200From: SyndesisDec 6, 1990 3:32 PM
Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I've recently regarded these distinctions between "24 bit," "21 bit" and NTSC vs. RGB as somewhat pointless… For many video-oriented Amiga users, isn't NTSC the be-all-and-end-all output format? Even if your HAM-E is spitting our RGB, many users – not all, of course – are planning on using someone's RGB to NTSC converter to lay it down to video. I can imagine people who don't want or don't desire any contact with NTSC. For example, if HAM-E support was direct in ASDG's scanner stuff, the images would look much better in preview in HAM-E than HAM or NTSC. How do you assess this split between pure RGB users and NTSC users? Are most HAM-E users going to NTSC, or do they avoid it like the plague?
#8214From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 4:58 PM
Distinctions between 24 bit, 21 bit, 18 bit (all RGB) and NTSC are not pointless, in my view. There are several reasons. First, 24 bit output is a specific level of accuracy; much like RMS, IHF, Peak, Instantaneous Peak power of the old stereo ad claims, where the number of "watts" a stereo had was the [ill-informed] consumers index of what stereo to buy; where the definition of "watts" was being quite loosely dropped on (initially) unsuspecting consumers. 24 bit accuracy indicates that you can develop 256 _distinct_ grey levels; it means that you have a rather large dynamic range for "difficult" colors such as flesh tones; it also implies that the color representation of the "device" is good enough that the resulting images are capable of representing color better than you can percieve it. As a marketing line, 24 bit color means to the consumer that they are getting "the best". Composite output, far from being the best, is nearly the worst of all – although it has a large (approximately 20 bit) dynamic range for color, it has _horrible_ dynamic color change response, so bad that _anybody_ can spot color errors in almost any image that has any red or blue in it. It is in fact virtually impossible with an accurate studio monitor, aligned to spec and as noise free as possible analog NTSC encoding/decoding equipment to resolve 24 bits of color information from a signal that is only a few tenths of a volt and mashed in there with numerous other pices er, pieces, of information all running at very high speed. So when NewTek and Digital Creations say 24 bit, it's _wrong_. If we leave the studio with it's engineers and vector scopes, the odds of an NTSC system getting anywhere NEAR 24 bit accuracy go out the window. Put it on tape, into a standard TV, and it's all over. 24 bit RGB is easily accomplished, with non-encoded data and _3_ separate lines to carry it on, with a total amplitude of one volt for all the data. [continued]
#8215From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 5:08 PM
[continuation] The number of our customers that use the HAM-E to go to video seems (by our best guess) to be about 5%. I have long suspected that the "go to video" segment of the market was small, and the "wanna good image" segment was large. CBM pushes video hard as can be, and the mags all jump on the bandwagon, but no one I have ever had as an "Amiga Buddy" in Florida or here (mind you, there are only about 30 Amigas in Glasgow, not counting the ones Black Belt owns) ever went to video at all. That would include about 100 people, at a guess. The HAM-E produces a beautiful image that is far better than anything the Amiga can do by itself, so it is inevitible that people who _do_ want to go to video will use it that way; and as I carefully point out, once you do, you have composite quality, which is to say, yech. :^) I hope you can imagine people who avoid composite like the plague. I'm one. I want HDTV, preferably RGB from camera to monitor, and as high a spacial resolution as I can get. I'm not holding my breath, of course. :^) One final issue. An RGB signal, by it's very nature, can change from one color to another color (any color to any color) in one pixels time, with a completely sharp edge, to the limit of the monitors dot pitch and the output DAC speed. A composite signal can make approximately 100 color changes per line of video, max, period, no matter what. Brightness changes are much better, and achieve almost 300/line. The thing that saves composite from being useless is that these 100 changes can occur anywhere on a line, with the single limit that they have to be about 1/100th away horizontally from the _last_ color change on that same line. Try drawing a blue box on a red backround in Toaster Paint and then render it to the toaster's output. You'll see an "artifact" that is approximately 1% of the toal line length, and ugly as segment registers. An RGB device, like the FireCracker or the HAM-E will render this to an RGB monitor perfectly. And _that_ is why they are superior. [continued]
#8217From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 5:21 PM
[continuation 2] We want the buying public to know about these issues. We feel we have a product that produces a superior image; it offers many advantages that are not found together in any other product; Nothing else provides blitter object (BOB) compatible operation, a deep color space (18 bit, 24 in critical places) Amiga screen environment compatibility (up, down, front, back, over, and under, all using Intuition std gadgets and mouse ops), and 256 level grey scale, and color register cycle, glow and pong. All of which is backed up by free software upgrades, available source code, and a rapidly expanding user base. If eveyr product out there goes on about 24 bit display quality when they do NOT have any such thing, then there goes our ability to get the message to the consumer. A clear exposition of the issues will harm no one company that has been honest about output resolution, limitations, and software capabilities. Black Belt is a small player in a market that has some very well funded, heavily madison-avenue type marketing types emplaced in it. Both DCTV and the M.A.S.T. people have had ads out – and not only are the ads deceptive, they didn't even have any product! The toaster is a long awaited FX unit, and it does what it's supposed to do in that department pretty well for it's rpice. Lightwave is a wonder. Toaster Paint is (IMHO) a stopgap hack that doesn't work very well. I've used it quite a bit, and in contrast to a real 24 bit paint, it's not even a contender. We want people to know that we offer a solid solution with high quality results. It's more than annoying when the others in the market use technical specifications as buzzwords. IT robs them of their meaning. User sees what they are told are 24 bit gfx on DCTV or Toaster… they thing they know what they will see when they look at a HAM-E, FireCracker, or ColorBurst. It's not so – and that takes it from annoying to deceptive. Bottom line, I think that most of the Amiga users out there never look twice at "video". I think they run in RGB, animations, multimedia presentations and all. How you gonna interact with a video tape,
#8262From: Charles BlaquiereDec 6, 1990 9:41 PM
I think your point about full blitter operation is a major argument in favor of HAM-E. Since the unit gets its data straight from normal Amiga screen memory, you can run any animation, using any normal program like Dpaint III or ShowAnim, and get full-speed animation with much better quality than normal HAM mode. The "real" framebuffers, as far as I know, have their own memory, so blitter (or any) animation is out of the question. Right? Blaq!
#8286From: Ethan SolomitaDec 6, 1990 11:22 PM
Charles, nothing against HAM-E but just to make sure you know, DC-TV also uses chip-ram and can be animated with your standard page-flipper program. Most real "frame buffers" have their own memory, like you say. — Ethan
#8308From: Ben A LottDec 7, 1990 1:02 AM
But you can't "Blit" an object easily over DCTV's signal I bet. BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8375From: Ethan SolomitaDec 7, 1990 4:26 PM
You can Blit full screens but I have no idea about images. It might be possible, but you never know. — Ethan
#8415From: Ben A LottDec 7, 1990 9:55 PM
We shall see. BTW folks DCTV has been DELAYED again until after X-mas accordeing to the letter they sent my distributor. When will this elusive unit be available to the general public. BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8435From: Ethan SolomitaDec 7, 1990 11:37 PM
I don't know what's doing with DCTV. I gave up and went with HAM-E. 😎 — Ethan P.S. If I have a problem I know just who to flame! %^)
#8526From: Ben A LottDec 8, 1990 8:22 PM
I'm glad I didn't wait either! BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8598From: Black Belt SystemsDec 9, 1990 12:41 AM
I thought they were supposed to ship last week? Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8688From: Ben A LottDec 9, 1990 8:45 PM
According to Mike at Micro-Pace, or shall I say according to the letter he read to me FROM the DCTV people, nope. They said there was a problem recieving a crucial part from overseas and it would not ship until after X-Mas. BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8317From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:23 AM
That is correct, except for DCTV, which does the same thing we do in the sense that they get thir info direct from the screen. However, and I have this right from the mares mouth (DCTV developers) DCTV's composite encoding causes pixels very far away from the pixel you're interested to have an effect on the current local pixel – similar to HAM mode, but worse, _according to them_. That might make blitter animation pretty rough. We'll have to wait and see. Blitter ops with the HAM-E can be seen by anyone, even w/o the device. Just DL the paint software and cut a brush. :^) Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8711From: Frank Lazar-ImagenieDec 10, 1990 12:20 AM
Ben, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't one important limitation of Ham-E is it's limitation to lo-res images? FL
#8721From: Black Belt SystemsDec 10, 1990 3:23 AM
Current HAM-E units can display images up to 384×480 pixels on an NTSC machine, more vertical resolution on a PAL system (560 lines or thereabouts). A hardware upgrade is in the works that will bring the output pixel rate up to 768 maximum, the same pixel rate that the AMiga sends pixels at in hi-res. Old units will be upgradable for the same difference in price that the new, hires units will sell for. The current resolution is the same as the AMiga's normal 12 bit HAM mode. An important point to know, since you can't see a HAM-E thru your modem, is that increasing the bits in the color space has very similar effects to increasing the bits in the spacial resolution. Images become much richer, deeper, and – even though there are the same number of pixels – more detailed. This is a well known effect. Although we don't yet have hires output, the price difference between us and the only available alternative (FireCracker) is huge, and the difference in output quality is not. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8750From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Dec 10, 1990 1:39 PM
Ben, . . "increasing the bits in the color space has very similar effects to increasing the bits in the spacial resolution." And how! It is amazing how much better (some) VGA images of 320 x 200 look compared to HAM of the same resolution. I have assumed that the smooth transitions in the colors of the VGA were the reason. Although the VGA can display only 256 colors compared to 4096, it can draw from a huge palette and therefore render the image without the 'posterizing' effect seen in Amiga HAM. I have seen some of these low resolution VGA images and at first thought they were of 'photographic' quality. They were probably selected for the potential to display well, but that does not diminish their effectiveness. Increasing the actual resolution is of course an improvement, but the smooth transition of the 'gray scale' factor makes an amazing difference. I can't wait to see a HAM-E image, and would really like to see the higher resolution version. Rich
#8758From: Black Belt SystemsDec 10, 1990 4:51 PM
What is really nice is that the HAM-E offers quite a bit more spatial resolution than those 320×200 VGA images; and it offers a MUCH larger palette (16 million colors as opposed to the quarter million VGA has). And that's just the VGA compatible REG mode. The HAM-E mode is just plain stunning when it's fed good source material. Of course, that last caveat applies to any graphics system. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8784From: Ben A LottDec 10, 1990 8:36 PM
After seeing the same pic on DCTV and Ham-E, DCTV seems to suffer from that more than Ham-E. I Bought my Ham-E after seeing DCTV. They claim Hi-res but have NEVER given me a pixel count when I asked. BTW frank the Ham-E can do super bitmaps, that may interest you in your printing biz. BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8218From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 5:22 PM
[continuation 3] Arghhh! Stupid editor truncated the last message. I think I had the point across, though. Hopefully, this provides the enlightenment you wanted. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8251From: Jason GoldbergDec 6, 1990 8:36 PM
Ben, I applaud both your product and your desire to clarify some of the misleading Amiga video advertizing. I am far from knowlagable about all these framebuffers, but I have some questions for you. With all this talk about 24 bit graphics, I think it needs to be clarified a little. Some of the companies are claiming that they are 24bit boards because they can display 16+ mil colors, you claim that they are not because they can only display the 16 mil to NTSC which can't display them acurately. As I read it there are two schools of thought on the Composite vs. RGB output scheme. Basically you output to RGB which is a higher quality medium than NTSC, and you reason that if you need NTSC you can convert down to that standard, and still have the same quality as your competitors. Your competitors say that since the final medium is going to be NTSC you might as well develope in that medium instead of getting uncertain results from developing in RGB and converting down. I will address the second issue first, I think you are right to go to RGB as that gives the end-user the option of what they wan't there finnal medium to be, where many of the other companies don't give you a choice. I do however, think its fine that the toaster is a NTSC device only since all its functions/software are targeted specifically for video and to my knowlage they don't try to sell it for any other purpose. However, as to the 24 bit issue, I tend to think that you are both misleading. In my mind 24 bit means just what it says, for each pixil you display the color of that pixil can be discribed by a series of 24 zero's or one's. As I understand it, you don't have a product that can discribe every pixil on the screen in 24 bits. I am not even sure that you can discribe every pixil on the screen with 18 bits of color. Now, some of the other so-called "24-bit" boards can discribe each pixil in 24 bits of memory. But, you rightly point out that they don't support a method to acurately display them. While, I agree that it may [ MORE ]
#8287From: Ethan SolomitaDec 6, 1990 11:22 PM
Jason, to my memory Ben has never claimed HAM-E to be 24 bit, just 18 bit HAM mode. As to the debate whether a device which outputs Composite NTSC can call itself 24-bit, it is my opinion that they can, as long as they make it clear what kind of signal they output. The result is improved if the computations are based around a 24 bit image. — Ethan
#8252From: Jason GoldbergDec 6, 1990 8:36 PM
[ continuation ] mean that you have a better, more usable product, I still think it means that they have more of a right to advertize 24-bits than you do. Since, (at least in my mind) the term 24-bit refers specifically to memory and only implies that it can be acuratley displayed. Please keep in mind that I am just giving you my (admittedly) uneducated view of the market and just want you to set me straight. -Jason-
#8311From: Ben A LottDec 7, 1990 1:06 AM
From what I've seen (the same picture rendered on both DCTV and HAM-E) the Ham-E's output is much more accurate(the picture was the Targa Eagle) to the original data, than DCTV (thier pic (DCTV's) was blurred and the Truevision logo was illegible, while Ham-E's was clear and legible). BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8316From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:21 AM
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
#8307From: Ben A LottDec 7, 1990 12:57 AM
You can always go to S-video (S-Vhs, Hi-8, ED-Beta)wich have FAR superior color to NTSC. BEN Leigh's Computer's BTW this can only be currently done with the Ham-E or Firecracker without losing more signal (once you are in NTSC it stays in NTSC no matter were you go).
#8208From: Ethan SolomitaDec 6, 1990 4:24 PM
Ben, you forgot about the Mimetics FrameBuffer, or did something happen to it? Also, I think that the Targa board should also be included because it can be used via bridgeboard and ImageLink from Active Circuits. — Ethan
#8219From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 5:24 PM
You're right. I did forget them both. Mimetics, I think, is a dead product with the advent of DCTV. The Targa is a dead product with the advent of the FireCracker, COlorBurst, and HAM-E units. Both are so far out of the price range that it's too difficult to justify the money; and both offer less speed performance than any of the alternatives; and speaking of money, both are too expensive. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8284From: Christopher LapriseDec 6, 1990 11:12 PM
Ummm, excuse me, but are you saying that the Mimetics Framebuffer is no longer available? Amazing Computing printed a complete review on it this year.
#8318From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:24 AM
No, I am saying that it is being eclipsed by other market forces. It's display quality is similar to, or less than, DCTV; and DCTV is MUCHO cheaper. Same for Targa – it's still there, but the FireCracker is cheaper, for the same performance. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8322From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:36 AM
I went back and looked at the message again; perhaps you were referring to the sentence where I said that there is only one 24 bit framebuffer, the FireCracker, and you think because I didn't include the Mimetics board it was gone or something… not so. I didn't include the mimetics board because it, like the other composite solutions, does not offer full 24 bit output, and that is what we were talking about. THey advertise it, like Digital Creations and NewTek, but not _one_ of those actually can display 24 bit images. Only the FireCracker can do that; in 1991, early 1991 if you believe their press, M.A.S.T. will also have a full 24 bit product for the Amiga. Nice one, too. Till then, only Impulses product can provide pure unadulterated 24 bit output. The HAM-E cannot do it. It can come _real_ close, in fact close enough so that you may not be able to tell, but it's not 24 bit, and it sure is harder to work with computationally. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8337From: Andrew HobbsDec 7, 1990 2:21 AM
I just went through and read the furor my simple request for info set off! 8) My data was incorrect, and you and the others set me to rights. I appreciate that! It looks like I will have to go with a RGB output system then. I will have to see your HAM-E and a Firecracker in action, and make my decision. I'd hate to have to justify the Firecracker, but it might be the way for me to go. Thanks again for everything! Your messages have been very informative. Maybe I'm not quite the ignorant fool I started. Later, Andrew Hobbs
#8423From: Ben A LottDec 7, 1990 10:03 PM
If you are in NYC from Thursday – Monday give me a call, I usually bring in my Ham-E unit (but call just in case). I have MANY demo pics from BlackBelt, myself, and some of my customers, I even have a few simply anims and hopefully will have some Imagine Anims, from a good customer of mine :). BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8505From: Andrew HobbsDec 8, 1990 4:43 PM
Alas and alack I'm stuck here in Norfolk! Yech! I would like to take a look at your HAM-E though. It looks like I'll be going with Firecracker24 though. I'm trying to arrange to get the FC and 8 meg for a total of 10 by January. Fingers crossed. I do appreciate all the info about 24 bit graphics though! Later, Andrew
#8527From: Ben A LottDec 8, 1990 8:23 PM
No problem. BEN Leigh's Computer's
#8591From: Black Belt SystemsDec 9, 1990 12:31 AM
Lack of information makes no one a fool, unless they insist on it after being corrected. :^) The FireCracker is the system of choice when 2 things are not an object. (1) money, and (2) speed. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8615From: RickDec 9, 1990 7:16 AM
I,ve been reading all the talk about HAM-E, and have a few questions. Does it work with a 3000 in "Flicker Fixer mode", and can it display the 18 bit imiges I get from my JX-100. Thanks for any info. Rick
#8662From: Black Belt SystemsDec 9, 1990 5:54 PM
It can display the 18 bit image very well indeed; it does not work in FF mode with any deinterlaced Amiga signal. That goes for the MicroWay FF, the ICD FFV, the CBM deinterlacer board and 3000 deinterlacer. It is a standard video rate product, and attaches at the 23 pin RGB port, which is the only place on the outside of the computer where the signals we need to operate exist. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8725From: RickDec 10, 1990 7:21 AM
You mean it won't work if I hit the "FF Disable" switch on the back of my machine, my monitor has to be hooked up to th other port? Also I saw your last message about upgrading to a 640 pixil version. Will it still be 18 bits deep? Will it be anything like Dyna-Rez Where the machine can do nothing else but display the pic. Thanks Rick Exit
#8756From: Black Belt SystemsDec 10, 1990 4:39 PM
It will be either 18 or 24 bits deep – most HAM-E pics are a mixture of the two pixel depths. It will be nothing like DynaSHow – the Amiga is free to multitask normally, no problem, when ANY kind of HAM-E image is shown. HAM-E images do not involve any software tricks or loading of the processor – when you show a HAM-E picture, you're putting only the load on your system that a normal Amiga hi-res image would. All of the translation and real-time image decompression is done by the HAM-E hardware… NOT the processor. The HAM-E must, without any exceptions at all, be attached to the Amiga's 23 pin RGB port. It cannot work on the FF port, because there are a number of signals that are not present there, notable the RGBI bits. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8849From: RickDec 11, 1990 8:30 AM
Two more questions. What's the max res HAM-E works with now? 320 X 200?, 320 X 400? When you do the upgrade what will the max res be? Rick
#8915From: Black Belt SystemsDec 11, 1990 10:50 PM
Current max res is 384×480 in an NTSC system, 384×560 in a PAL system, and it will be 768×480 in NTSC and 768×560 in PAL when the upgrade becomes available.
#8638From: Andrew HobbsDec 9, 1990 1:10 PM
Hmmm. Well, for 1 I'm going financing. And 2 I really don't need 24 bit anims but 24 bit stills. So much for the (1) money, and (2) speed! 8) Thanks for everything! Andrew
#8176From: Joe KuzmaDec 6, 1990 12:45 PM
Andrew, You may want to check out Black Belts HAM-E board. While not 24-bit, it does support 18-bits. Check out the AMIGAVENDOR Black Belt forum, they have good support and can answer any question you have.
#8181From: Andrew HobbsDec 6, 1990 1:31 PM
Thanks for the response, but I'm looking at 24 bit for use with Imagine. Later! Andrew eixt
#8209From: Ethan SolomitaDec 6, 1990 4:24 PM
The HAM-E has some advantages and some limitations, it depends what you want it for. HAM-E is very inexpensive and gives RGB output. It is perfectly compatible. The disadvantages are that the resolution is only 320 horizontal, and that 18 bit is a HAM mode. — Ethan
#8222From: Black Belt SystemsDec 6, 1990 5:34 PM
It's 384 in overscan, _and_ we'll be going to 640/768 in Jan/Feb. Also, that the 18 bit is a ham mode is correct, but it is a _far_ better ham mode (speaking now of HAM artifacts, not about color res although that's better too :^) than the Amiga's native ham mode. Have you seen a HAM-E running yet, Ethan? Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8245From: Ethan SolomitaDec 6, 1990 8:14 PM
I would like to see one, but haven't yet. After finals are over and AFTER Christmas shopping 8), I'll go and look at the Toaster, HAM-E and DCTV and make up my mind. How will you be going to 640 horiz? Taking two frames instead of two pixels? — Ethan
#8313From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:11 AM
Nope. One frame, full blitter compatibility. It's sneaky, like the rest of the design. :^) You'll see what it involves when we release it – until then, we're staying mute, so that this particular advance only appears on our hardware, at least at first. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8294From: Lloyd W. Dull IIIDec 6, 1990 11:50 PM
Ben, Will the 640/768 change be an "easy upgrade" for anybody that currently owns a HAM-E? Lloyd
#8319From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:25 AM
Pretty easy. You send it to us, we install no charge. Price will be the difference between the "new" HAM-E and the "old" HAM-E. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8302From: Michael SheaDec 7, 1990 12:40 AM
Ben, Can HAM-E be used with a mulitisynch monitor so that your 640/768 res mode could be flicker-free? Also, is this higher resolution a hardware or software update? Thanks, <<< Michael Shea >>>> <<< 76665,3360 >>>>
#8320From: Black Belt SystemsDec 7, 1990 1:26 AM
Yes, it can be used with a multi sync, no it won't be flicker free. It's standard video rates. There is no 24 bit Flicker Fixer on the market; and since we take our data directly from the AMiga's memory, we _have_ to run at the same rate as the Amiga. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
#8647From: David KieltykaDec 9, 1990 3:09 PM
Ben, Say, that HiRes HAM-E mode sounds mighty appealing. I regret that I've had very little opportunity to actually _use_ my HAM-E; a still-ongoing series of hardware problems, coupled with a heavy workload, has kept me in virtual Amiga computing limbo for the past few months. 8^( I think I told you awhile back that I'd tweaked my HAM-E out of calibration and so was going to try locating an oscilloscope and recalibrating it. Well…I've been unable to find a scope fast enough to do the job. So I guess I'm gonna have to send the unit back to you. But I'll probably wait 'til you release the "improved" HAM-E before I take any action. Looking forward to the latest & greatest. -Dave-
#8665From: Black Belt SystemsDec 9, 1990 5:55 PM
Ok, whatever you prefer. Ben Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S