#Mac vs Amiga ?
12 messages in this thread
Ethan,
Here is the second part of the message about Amiga video/animation etc.
On the Mac, when you're ready to move to 24-bit, all the pieces are in
place, not yet the case on the Amiga. And frame-grabbing equipment is not
much pricier on the Mac than it is on the Amiga.
Animation is another story. There is a wider range of animation software
available on the Amiga, and you can do some pretty nice stuff even on the
low priced Amigas (unlike the Mac, even the under $1k Amigas have color and
a graphics co-processor). Animation stuff I've seen on the Mac tends to be
pricey, complicated, and often doesn't look as good as stuff from cheaper,
simpler Amiga systems. An animation hobbyist would probably prefer the
Amiga. The ease of geting things out to video is another plus, since that
is ultimately what you'd probably want to do with most animations.
I am looking into some Mac->video possibilities right now in another
thread, and there are some options available. But the Amiga is still ahead
here in terms of selection, simplicity, economy, and design. By design I
mean that the video circuitry in the Amiga itself and some aspects of the
interface and architecture of the machine (like the fact that it's easy to
hide menubars, or to keep another program running in the background (music,
perhaps) without slowing down an animation) lend itself to this kind of
thing.
Harry,
Nice to see a Mac user getting Amiga-educated, if nothing else.
One more thing on 24-bit video (at least from this person, who happens to
be involved in commercial videographics): Where video/animation is
concerned, I don't see a very great need for 'integrated 24-bit
graphics'… Still-frame work (for use as background etc.) can easily have
Amiga Video (which may be animated) overlaid and since the computer isn't
animating then sticking a 24-bit image on the screen with a 'special'
software utility is no big deal, although it makes painting and such
awkward, it doesn't necessarily stifle the process. Likewise with 24-bit
animation.. It'll be a slow, time-intensive frame-by-frame recording
process (on any micro) and that's about all you're gonna do, a function
filled by the custom 24-bit software. The consolation, for now, is that the
Amiga offers an extremely cost-effective 24-bit 'studio-engine' kind of
package (the Toaster) with no real peers in the Mac or (gak) MS-DOS.
Now DTP is another matter. Layout functions of color images within a DTP
package is more demanding (although it is hard for most people to justify
full-color in DTP even today). Again, 24-bit means for this process exist
on the Amiga, but they are not (yet) as elagant as on the Mac.
One last comment on 'frame-grabbing'… As cost goes, I really would like
to know if the Mac has something similar to the Amiga's DigiView slow-scan
21-bit digitizer (saves in various Amiga modes as well as 'standard' IFF24
format). List is $199, average cost about $130. There is more probably
something similar to the FrameGrabber realtime 24-bit at about $500.
:::As cost goes, I really would like to know if the Mac has something
similar to the Amiga's DigiView
No, nothing that low-priced that is color. The lowest cost color digitizer
I know on the Mac is ComputerEyes, which lists for $450. It's a
camera-based slow-scan system (6 seconds), 640×480, 8 or 24 bit color.
There are some lower priced b/w systems. Up from there (but still under
$1000 list) would be the Sharp JX-100 flat scanner, the not-yet-released
Animas color hand scanner, RasterOps' framegrabber, and a couple of other
framegabbers (Computer Friends, Aapps, maybe some others). One nice piece
is the $1295 (list) RasterOps 364, which is a 24-bit video board with a
24-bit framegrabber. ===Scott
The JX100 works especially beautifully with an Amiga.. 18-bit color and
8-bit grey.
Yes, the JX-100 does nice work in both environments. ===Scott
And I suppose that transferring from 24-bit to 8-bit on the Mac is a
breeze, also; Do tell me about that. Ham cut-and-paste is relatively
easy, considering that all colors are utltimately available in each image.
By Amiga standards, even a Mac-II cannot animate.. I've seen examples
(demos?) and the results are far from professional (or even smooth). We are
talking about a minimum of 15fps with substantial image transitions from
frame to frame, with hundreds of frames. Even a '286 VGA has a better
chance of aproaching that than the Mac-II's single, multiplexed buss (i.e.
Fat chance).
:::And I suppose that transferring from 24-bit to 8-bit on the Mac is a
breeze, also; Do tell me about that.
I think that most Mac 24-bit color programs can also save images in
dithered 8-bit format. But you're correct that reverse-direction
compatibility is never as smooth, and that's true on _every_ platform,
including Amiga (how easy is it to get HAM images into Deluxe Paint?), so
I'm not sure what your point is.
I was discussing the transition from 8-bit to 24-bit (and I'd guess that
few people need to make the transition the other way anyway). When a Mac
user upgrades from 8-bit to 24-bit, he can have a mix of different 8-bit
and 24-bit programs running simultaneously in windows on the same screen,
including the ability to bring his 8-bit images into the 24-bit environment
or to cut and paste from the 8-bit into the 24-bit images. I think that's
an advantage. I also think it is an advantage that it is standardized, you
don't have to work about a certain graphics program only working with one
company's video board.
As for animation, I again agree that the Amiga is ahead, I never said
otherwise. I just disagree that the Mac II is _entirely_ incapable of
animation – I have seen some decent stuff. And not all computer animation
falls into your description of "a minimum of 15fps with substantial image
transitions from frame to frame, with hundreds of frames" – that's a new
wrinkle you just introduced, I didn't know you were defining it so
narrowly. I honestly don't know if any Mac hardware/software combination is
capable of that. I have seen some nice Mac animation (I've also seen some
poor Mac animation). The Mac may or may not be suitable for animation as
you need it, but that does not mean that it's incapable of any animation
period. (For that matter, I've seen some nice stuff stuff done with a
frame-by-frame
[continued in the reply]
[continued]
recording method, which is another valid computer animation technique that
is suitable for some purposes.) ===Scott
Scott,
My point there was that problems do exist on every platform when changing
image formats. I don't know about Dpaint, but the Deluxe-PhotoLab Paint
software will do automatic conversions and palette re-mapping between
formats; It also allows the user to edit in all formats.
Unfortunately, 24-bit upgrades are costly, especially on the Mac. Also, I
can see how convenient having a windowing environment on the 24-bit
framebuffer would be for desktop publishing (for manipulating color clipart
and whatnot), but I can't see much use for it in desktop video.
On the other hand, the Amiga's windowing environment is available in the
18-bit color I mentioned in my last message.
Straight out of the box, the Mac cannot animate as well as the Amiga.
But… given the right hardware, you can get some very nice animations.
The company I work for makes a non-linear video/audio editing system that
digitizes and plays back 30fps 8-bit video as well as 44KHz 16-bit audio
directly from disk in real time. I haven't seen any hardware for the Amiga
that can do this sort of thing yet (I hope there is soon).
– Steve Hall –
On the contrary – you can play 30 fps, full-screen, full color video while
playing 4 simultaneous sounds channels out of an Amiga using various fast
HD systems. This has been repeatedly demonstrated at the last couple of
AmiExpo shows.
You might want to talk to the Digital Creations people about this… it was
their booth I saw this techo-feat. :^)
By full-color, we're talking full NTSC video, several million colors. :^)
And yes, I'm sure of my facts – these people make a video product that is a
direct competitor of a video product we make; it has one advantage, and
it's the one we're talking about here… it's slightly faster than ours.
Ours make better images, but is only capable of about 20 fps, full-bore
animation from disk.
In memory, we can achieve 30 (or even 60) fps with ease, using the Amiga's
"copper" co-processor to flip video frame addresses w/o having to move the
image data.
The Mac has a long way to go to catch up in the video area, as far as I can
tell.
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
To an extent some of what was said is true. The Mac has better
integrated 24 bit. The Amiga is just beginning to get 24-bit sophisticated.
But the Amiga does things in jumps from what I've seen. Like I've said
before, there will be a sudden burst of several competing products which
didn't exist before. 24 bit graphics seems to be coming on strong. The Art
Department is probably the defacto 24 bit graphics program today.
— Ethan