CompuServe Thread

Oh, Rubbish

24 messages in this thread
#104489From: Thomas HoladayJan 20, 1988 10:52 PM
Anyone who wants a 68030 Amiga can stick a CSA board into an A2000 and go. Atari Abaq, my eye!
#104709From: Alex SchneiderJan 22, 1988 4:18 PM
You eye, eh? I like the Amiga, but the harsh reality is that we are limited to 12 bits of color and 640 x 400. What about the graphics side? When will the "great" video port be use? Alex
#104769From: Thomas HoladayJan 22, 1988 11:22 PM
Alex, I take it you concede leadership to Amiga on pure muscle terms since the 68030 board is shipping _now._ So, you're retreating to a supposed limit of 640 x 400 x 12 bit video. Rubbish again. Deluxe Paint II supported Overscan (for higher resolution images) fourteen months ago. I can't remember how many zillion-color boards were shown at AmiExpo last October, but I bet there were at least four at AmiExpo Los Angeles.
#104783From: John FoustJan 23, 1988 12:33 AM
Zillion color boards? I can't think of any that can handle DP II. The Mimetics framegrabber remains vaporware, and it cannot support real-time access, and it only supports NTSC colors within those limitations, which means that it can't display all colors on a single scan line, similar to the way HAM works. What other boards are you refering to?
#104812From: Alex SchneiderJan 23, 1988 9:33 AM
Overscan is purely trivial, allowing a few more pixels in each direction, which doesn't even work with some display screens. No, the Amiga isn't limited to 640 x 400 x 12 bits, it cannot even perform a 640 x 400 x 12 bit screen. Four more boards to provide 24 bits of color, but that would be limited in the sense that there is no way for an end user to make their software library use it.
#105074From: John FoustJan 24, 1988 2:23 PM
Yeah, but is overscan "trivial" on a Mac or Pee Cee or an Ess Tee?
#105258From: Alex SchneiderJan 25, 1988 12:39 PM
Use the RM Function to read these messages.
#105310From: John FoustJan 25, 1988 7:43 PM
It's a not-so-subtle point, I think. How can you call something "desktop video" without being able to send it to tape? Or remove a fixed color border? I mean, TV sets don't have borders.
#105537From: Alex SchneiderJan 26, 1988 8:05 PM
Use the RM Function to read this message.
#105571From: John FoustJan 26, 1988 11:01 PM
The Amiga has overscan out of the box. as far as I know, the only other computer that has/had that was the Mindset.
#105596From: Charlie HeathJan 27, 1988 12:02 AM
#105600From: GreG Tsadilas/SYSOPJan 27, 1988 12:05 AM
Use the RM Function to read these messages.
#105099From: Lloyd W. Dull IIIJan 24, 1988 4:59 PM
Alex, It seems to me that while the MAC II and PC/2 have PALETTES of millions of colors (24 bits), they can only DISPLAY 256 or maybe 512 of those colors. So while the Amiga has a smaller PALETTE, it can display more of colors. I have read that of the one or two frame buffers that are going to be produced for the Amiga (Mimetics and/or NewTek), there will be software (Sculpt 3D?) that can take advantage of the 24 bit color. It's vapor until it's out, but you can't dismiss it yet. Lloyd
#105259From: Alex SchneiderJan 25, 1988 12:41 PM
But the trade-off is questionable as to which way it better. Is it better to have an ability to display many widely-varying colors at once, or to be able to have a picture with fewer colors, yet with easier transitions between consecutive colors? Alex
#105333From: Lloyd W. Dull IIIJan 25, 1988 9:21 PM
Alex, I can't quite follow your thinking. In the mode that allows the most colors on-screen, with the VGA, the PS/2 gives you a max of 256 colors ON SCREEN in LOW RESOLUTION (320 or 350 X 200). This is about the same has the Amiga's HAM LoRES, but far short of the 4096 colors. So even though the VGA gives you a larger PALETTE, you CAN'T DISPLAY IT ALL. How do you get "fewer colors, yet with easier transitions between consecutive colors"?? It's been my observation that the greater the # of displayed colors, the "easier the transition" – it even makes the image look "sharper" (at least more realistic) than it normally is. Lloyd
#105538From: Alex SchneiderJan 26, 1988 8:08 PM
In I think the Sculpt-3d documentation, I think they said that there is a 3% transition between consecutive colors, making two adjacent pixels which are consecutive colors not as easily blended by the human eye. alex
#105557From: Lloyd W. Dull IIIJan 26, 1988 10:10 PM
Alex, OK, I'll take that as a given, even though I haven't read it. And that's using Sculpt-3D using HAM mode, no? 4096 colors? So, what kind of transition would you get with a machine (PS/2 – VGA) that can only show 256 colors at once? You could probably get a very fine MONOCHROME image, or an image with very few colors – you could have a few more shades in certain ranges by limiting you total color palette. Would there be THAT much of a difference, and would it be worth it? Lloyd
#105416From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJan 26, 1988 12:41 AM
Alex, You are contradicting yourself, you state fewer colors on screen is ok but allows you to have easier transitions between consecutive colors. The more colors you can have on screen at any one time allows you to have more intermediate colors between color A and color B. Don
#105439From: Nick Sullivan/TransactorJan 26, 1988 2:10 AM
Don, not necessarily. If you can only have up to (say) 16 colours on the screen at one time, but can draw from a palette of (say) a zillion colours, then the 16 you use can all be taken from the range that lies between two neighbouring colours in the Amiga's more limited spectrum, giving you very smooth transitions but not much variety. Just one more trade-off. Nick
#105440From: Don Curtis/SYSOPJan 26, 1988 2:35 AM
Nick, I may be wrong, I'm certainly not a color expert, but I would think that with the 4096 colors available on the Amiga you could make a transition just as smoothly (visualy) as you could when you had 16 zillion colors. Now, if you were strictly limited to a 16 color pallet, then yes you are severely limited in what you can do. I think that when you get much above 1024 colors, it's all a matter of subtleties that most (if not all) won't see. I've seen some amazing tricks pulled via aliasing and dithering and high resolution with some rather limited color pallets. Don
#105452From: Ariel ButlerJan 26, 1988 9:25 AM
Don: All dithering tricks aside, I believe that playing with a color palette requester (Access, Dpaint, etc..) will convince you that even with 4096 colors you could see and appreciate shades BETWEEN those that can be achieved with 12 bit color. While 4096 sounds like alot, this range must be spread out over the entire visible spectrum. 16 Million might SEEM like alot, but by using intelligent algorithm's (and digitizers) you can improve the detail in a picture greatly, EVEN IF you can only show fewer of them on the screen at once. I think that "image enhancement" routines become useful in direct proportion to the number of colors they have to play with (especially anti-aliasing and contrast enhancement). Sure, we could live with less than 16 million, but 24 bits (8 per color) is such a natural size (and pleasant for software work — no masking/shifting) that it's the one to head for IMHO. Ariel
#105544From: Alex SchneiderJan 26, 1988 8:18 PM
IN fact, the eye can read 1 more bit of green, so we aren't perfect until we hit 32 million. Alex
#105543From: Alex SchneiderJan 26, 1988 8:17 PM
Don, the human eye can easily recognize up to 8 bits each of red and blue and 9 bits of green. Alex
#105552From: Ben BlishJan 26, 1988 8:51 PM
Alex – I don't know where you got your facts – but, for the average person, my understanding is that for _grey_ levels, (which you are more sensitive to) the average person can't do 256 levels. I have several graphics texts that make the unambiguous statement that 8 bits/gun is >enough. Where _did_ you get your facts??? –Ben–