djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) (08/22/90)
I have just discovered the world of the GIF. The graphic standard that allows you to send pictures all over the world. I thought, there must be a decent Amiga program that converts from it. And yes, there were several so I tried them and they failed/died/ran out of memory. I want to convert large/small colour and b/w pictures into ILBM/HAM form. As an example, I tried converting an 1152x9?? bw standard picture. Some of the programs took 30 minutes, some worked fast, but nearly all of them produced a tiny 640x400 picture - yuk. Have they never heard of overscan? I tried a smaller color picture and boom - out of memory. Does anyone have a decent GIF --> ILBM/HAM converted that WORKS and preferably does the following: * Converts to overscan pictures and ALLOWS YOU TO SAVE THEM! * Converts to HAM pictures, when there are too many colours * WORKS! Programs that I have tried and gave up on are: HAMGIF GIFTOIFF GIF2IFF GIFMachine GIFFY VirtGIF (Best of the lot but slow and no save) Any help would be *most* welcome Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Beckett | djb1@ukc.ac.uk Computing Lab., University of Kent, Canterbury,Kent,UK | ..!mcsun!ukc!djb1
drtiller@uokmax.uucp (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) (08/23/90)
I have had some experience in the area of GIF conversion and the following are
some of my ramblings:
The best (all this is in my own humble opinion) single-step converter is
SHAMSharp. It will take a GIF and convert it to HAM (or SHAM if requested, but
not in overscan mode) and will even do overscan. I haven't used it too
extensively so I'm not sure whether it automatically scales a picture to the
maximum overscan or not (although an earlier version - HAMSharp - would produce
a blank picture when the GIF was too big).
More versatile is GIFtoRGB V1.1 which allows the conversion of a GIF to an RGB
file in the format of Digi View 4.0. The file may then be scaled and/or padded
to a standard Amiga size and loaded into Digi View for conversion to any mode
your heart desires, including Dynamic HAM and Dynamic Hi-Res. The RGB files
are NOT compressed (their format isn't that is) so can be VERY large (in some
cases over 1 Meg for an 800x600 or larger GIF).
NOTE: Major drawback: NewTek will not sell the Digi View 4.0 software
outright by itself. It is possible, however to tell them you want to
"upgrade" to DV4.0 and you can purchase the software that way. This was
suggested by someone at NewTek so no flames please.
There are two commercial products which will allow decent GIF-IFF conversion
but I've only had experience with one of them (I just read about the other one
moments ago and at a list price of $199 I didn't really care what it was
called). The Art Department (with _optional_ GIF module) will allow the
intuitive loading and manipulating of a GIF picture (as well as RGB formats
from Turbo Silver {I ray trace and go to a dynamic mode} the Sculpt series,
Digi View 3.0 and Digi View 4.0) and saving it in any mode including Dynamic
work-alikes of the NewTek versions (which are viewable with Dyna-Show although
the version of TAD that I have doesn't work too well in this area, the files
must be actually loaded into Digi View 4.0 and then re-saved for Dyna-Show to
be able to read them). You can adjust all kinds of things with TAD including
scaling, palette, contrast, brightness, gamma (a logarithmic intensity
function), and even do color separation. It's not a bad program BUT the price
is still too high ($50 or so for TAD and $30 or so for the GIF module) and the
kick-in-the-head is that they offer a "professional" version at $199 list that
will save to all the modes but also requires the external modules (at similar
extra cost) to address GIF and the other optionals. I cry "FOUL" and call that
a rip-off (no flames please, just IMHO).
EXTREMELY PERTINANT NOTE: ALL these programs can require LARGE amounts of
memory and computation time. TAD requires a large contiguous chunk of memory
and it TAKES as much as there is (no multi-tasking here unless you run the
other task first). The smaller that chunk, the more limited TAD becomes quite
quickly. The computation time is the result of the difference in display types
(obviously, but maybe not as evident:) and the fact that GIFs are compressed
with the LZW algorithm (as used in lharc and I belive PKZip). If your machine
is slow with these archivers (and they are if you run a 68000) then expect
the translation time to be several times as slow in GIF conversion. HAMGIF is
so quick (relatively - I use it for quick and dirty viewing before conversion)
because there is almost no optimization done on the palette (which means the
whole picture doesn't need to be loaded in thus reducing memory requirements)
when converting to HAM.
I personally use a GVP 68030 @ 28Mhz with 4megs Fast and 1 meg Chip and have
over 120 Megs of HD and a SyQuest to store all those GIFs, RGBs, and IFFs
and have had little problem with memory (some fragmentation if too may progs
are run before TAD and it doesn't get a big enough contig chunk). I have had
no conversion take more than a minute with any of the converters I've tried.
If you don't have these resources, then you realize what you are facing in
way of processing time and memory limitations. You can still convert, but
stick with SHAMSharp and don't be impatient (that's what you have a multi-
tasking machine for :-).
_______ __________
_/____) ' __ /_/ / ' / / __ _ "N.I.N.J.A.J.I.S."-Me
/ \___/__/___/ |_ /__/__/__/_/_-_/__/_/ The Displaced Razorback.
___________________________________________/ Founder: IDGAFF Ltd.
The Amiga Computer - "...a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Hyperbolic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciceronicus Twelve..."
-D.Adams; Well, almost.jean@pogo.hasler (08/23/90)
In article <5338@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: >I have just discovered the world of the GIF. The graphic standard that allows > > VirtGIF (Best of the lot but slow and no save) > I use only VirtGIF and it's really great! However I cannot get an IFF conversion? Is there a way? In the documentation of VirtGIF some possible improvements are mentioned! Is there a new version in preparation?
arc@desire.wright.edu (08/23/90)
In article <5338@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>, djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: > I have just discovered the world of the GIF. The graphic standard that allows > you to send pictures all over the world. I thought, there must be a decent > Amiga program that converts from it. And yes, there were several so I tried > them and they failed/died/ran out of memory. I want to convert large/small > colour and b/w pictures into ILBM/HAM form. As an example, I tried converting > an 1152x9?? bw standard picture. Some of the programs took 30 minutes, some > worked fast, but nearly all of them produced a tiny 640x400 picture - yuk. > Have they never heard of overscan? I tried a smaller color picture and boom - > out of memory. > > Does anyone have a decent GIF --> ILBM/HAM converted that WORKS > and preferably does the following: > > * Converts to overscan pictures and ALLOWS YOU TO SAVE THEM! > > * Converts to HAM pictures, when there are too many colours > > * WORKS! > > Programs that I have tried and gave up on are: > > HAMGIF > GIFTOIFF > GIF2IFF > GIFMachine > GIFFY > VirtGIF (Best of the lot but slow and no save) > > Any help would be *most* welcome > > Dave > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > David Beckett | djb1@ukc.ac.uk > Computing Lab., University of Kent, Canterbury,Kent,UK | ..!mcsun!ukc!djb1 The BEST GIF converter that I have seen yet (for HAM, etc.) is ShamSharp 1.6... Very awsome...
S36666WB@ETSUACAD.BITNET (Brian Wright) (08/23/90)
On 23 Aug 90 10:35:08 GMT you said: >In article <5338@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: >>I have just discovered the world of the GIF. The graphic standard that allows >> >> VirtGIF (Best of the lot but slow and no save) >> > >I use only VirtGIF and it's really great! However I cannot get an IFF >conversion? Is there a way? >In the documentation of VirtGIF some possible improvements are >mentioned! Is there a new version in preparation? You can save an IFF picture. You can grab the screen with ScreenX or Grabbit. I prefer ScreenX. You just pick the screen you want to save and hit the save screen button. If the image from VirtGIF is a superbitmap you can just scroll around the screen and save until you have the whole image. Then put all the pieces together with a paint program. Hope this helps.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================================================= ||To steal from one is plagiarism. To steal from many is research. || ||___________________________________ ---UNKNOWN--- || || | / / || ||---Brian Wright | / / || ||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu | \ \/ / Only Amiga || ||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile| \/\/ Makes It Possible!! || =======================================================================
jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (08/23/90)
In article <5338@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: > Does anyone have a decent GIF --> ILBM/HAM converted that WORKS > and preferably does the following: > > * Converts to overscan pictures and ALLOWS YOU TO SAVE THEM! > > * Converts to HAM pictures, when there are too many colours > > * WORKS! I like HamLab, but then I'm slightly biased because I wrote it. With its dithering option turned off, it produces results more or less like ShamSharp (HAM only, though, no SHAM yet), except you can control whether you want the picture squashed horizontally or not. With dithering turned on, it produces results that are, in my opinion, comparable to images that I've seen that are produced by high-powered software like ASDG's The Art Department. HamLab is $15 demoware (or "crippleware" to some). There is a freely-distributable demo version that includes all features (including save) but crops any pictures larger than 512 x 512 pixels. The full version works for me on 1152 x 900 color images. The demo is available on BBS's around the US. I don't know if it has made it to Europe yet. Ed Hanway
whinery@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Alan Whinery) (08/24/90)
In order to convert GIF to IFF, I've always found GRABBIT (a frame grabber) to be fast and effective. The byte-by-byte uncompress/recompress methods always take so much time, and most don't even show you the picture as you go. I just set up a slide show, grab each frame as it passes before my eyes... Alan whinery@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (08/24/90)
djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: >an 1152x9?? bw standard picture. Some of the programs took 30 minutes, some >worked fast, but nearly all of them produced a tiny 640x400 picture - yuk. >Have they never heard of overscan? I tried a smaller color picture and boom - >out of memory. er, 1152x9? What was it, a scale gif of a water hose? any way, 1152 is just a wee more than overscan. I think the Amiga can only handle up to 700 something (748 or thereabouts) on horizontal overscan. If you don't want to shrink the picture down so it fits on your Amiga screen, then you need to be able to view a virtual picture. In other words, the GIF will be in memory and your screen will be a window that you can slide around and view different parts of it. The only program that does this for GIFs is VirtGIF as far as I know, but you said you already tried that. And yes memory will be a problem for large GIFs, since I believe VirtGIF keeps the entire picture in memory and lets you slide around on it. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz (John Bickers) (08/25/90)
Quoted from - jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway): > In article <5338@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: > > Does anyone have a decent GIF --> ILBM/HAM converted that WORKS > > and preferably does the following: > I like HamLab, but then I'm slightly biased because I wrote it. With its Wow. Coincidence. I just downloaded it from a local BBS today, in between an AmigaUUCP poll and reading this newsgroup. It turns in very nice results, particularly with the FS dithering turned on. The only problem I have with it is that HAM seems to be the only target mode. This can be a problem with some GIFs that are created in 640x400x16 dimensions, and already dithered. I normally use my own stuff to convert GIFs, though I have HamSharp on hand. Which can handle large pictures ok (converts to a raw 8 bit file then munges that) - but HamLab produces far better results on smaller pictures (and would with large pictures too, if... :). > the US. I don't know if it has made it to Europe yet. Well, it's made it to NZ! > Ed Hanway -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.co.nz *** *** "Man, Machine -> Super Human Being" - Kraftwerk. ***
meyers@wybbs.mi.org (John Meyers) (08/25/90)
In article <9008231420.AA18755@jade.berkeley.edu>, S36666WB@ETSUACAD.BITNET (Brian Wright) writes: > On 23 Aug 90 10:35:08 GMT you said: > >In article <5338@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: > >>I have just discovered the world of the GIF. The graphic standard that allows > >> > >> VirtGIF (Best of the lot but slow and no save) ^^ ^^^^ The registered version does. > > > >I use only VirtGIF and it's really great! However I cannot get an IFF > >conversion? Is there a way? > >In the documentation of VirtGIF some possible improvements are > >mentioned! Is there a new version in preparation? > > You can save an IFF picture. You can grab the screen with ScreenX or Grabbit. > I prefer ScreenX. You just pick the screen you want to save and hit the > save screen button. If the image from VirtGIF is a superbitmap you can just > scroll around the screen and save until you have the whole image. Then put > all the pieces together with a paint program. Hope this helps.... Or to make things easier, you can just register it. Instead of saving 6 IFF pictures to capture a whole 800x1024 screen, you can save it in ONE superbitmap file. No need to paste anything together. The program will even handle HUGE pictures. I've viewed and saved 800X1300 files, no problem. (On my "wimpy" 1 meg 500, 512K chip, no less.) I will admit that it takes a while to load larger files into memory, but I don't believe there are any other GIF viewers that allow you to scroll around the picture, and then save the WHOLE picture into a single file. The moral of the story? VirtGIF 2.0 will allow one to save superbitmap files into one IFF file. All that for $10-15. (And I'm a poor college student. ;-) You just have to register it, which is what you are supposed to do if you plan on using it, anyway. > ||---Brian Wright | / / || > ||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu | \ \/ / Only Amiga || > ||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile| \/\/ Makes It Possible!! || DISCLAIMER : I am in no way affiliated with the author of VirtGIF, other than being a satisfied customer. John -- __ , |John M. Meyers _/ meyers@wybbs.UUCP (_/_ / /)) _ _ _ _ | \ sharkey!wybbs.mi.org!meyers _/(//)/) / / (-'(/(-'/ ' '-,| "I only laughed away your tears, (/""""""""""""""(_/"""""""""" | but even jesters cry!" - Fish
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (08/25/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jean@pogo.hasler > I use only VirtGIF and it's really great! However I cannot get an IFF > conversion? Is there a way? > In the documentation of VirtGIF some possible improvements are > mentioned! Is there a new version in preparation? I think a few of you are missing the point. Some of these program will convert your GIF's to =SCREEN IMAGES=. It is then very easy to toggle screens and save them as IFF images with such programs as "ScreenX" "Grabit" and a host of other such screen savers. Pickup a couple of these and then you will be able to save your converted GIF's to IFF images. -- Bob ________ Pro-Graphics BBS - It's better than a sharp stick in the eye! ________ InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | Pro-Graphics: 908/469-0049 UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | Amer. Online: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (08/25/90)
In-Reply-To: message from arc@desire.wright.edu > The BEST GIF converter that I have seen yet (for HAM, etc.) is ShamSharp > 1.6... Very awsome... I suggest that you all try a new converter called "HAMLAB". It does a fantastic job on GIF images with deep bit color. This program converts the images to 24 bit RGB files and then processes the RGB files in various ways. It gives you image quality on some GIF's that is hard to believe. Is this program up in the binaries? If not, I will see if I can send it on up. -- Bob ________ Pro-Graphics BBS - It's better than a sharp stick in the eye! ________ InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | Pro-Graphics: 908/469-0049 UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | Amer. Online: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854
eric@emerald.rutgers.edu (Eric Lavitsky) (08/25/90)
In article <1990Aug23.045556.17590@uokmax.uucp> drtiller@uokmax.uucp (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes: > I have had some experience in the area of GIF conversion and the > following are some of my ramblings: > (some text deleted here for brevity) > There are two commercial products which will allow decent GIF-IFF conversion > but I've only had experience with one of them (I just read about the > other one moments ago and at a list price of $199 I didn't really > care what it was called). Well I care since you're probably talking about my product, ImageLink. If you are looking for an image file conversion package, ImageLink is competitively priced if you require support for a wide variety of image formats (right out of the box). I don't think you realize how much effort is involved in supporting all these formats, especially when many of the more popular ones (PICT2 for example) are so horridly documented. For pure graphic bitmap image formats, along with color->greyscale, color reduction, proper scaling etc., the price of ImageLink compares favorably with competitors in the PC market like HIJAAK, which retails for ~$99.00 and enjoys a much larger market. Other products in the PC market which do the more "interesting" things that ImageLink and TAD do retail for $300 or more (I guess they were more difficult to write on those platforms :-)). > The Art Department (with _optional_ GIF module) will allow the > intuitive loading and manipulating of a GIF picture (as well as RGB > formats from Turbo Silver {I ray trace and go to a dynamic mode} the > Sculpt series, Digi View 3.0 and Digi View 4.0) and saving it in any > mode including Dynamic work-alikes of the NewTek versions (which are > viewable with Dyna-Show although the version of TAD that I have > doesn't work too well in this area, the files must be actually > loaded into Digi View 4.0 and then re-saved for Dyna-Show to be able > to read them). You can adjust all kinds of things with TAD including > scaling, palette, contrast, brightness, gamma (a logarithmic intensity > function), and even do color separation. It's not a bad program BUT > the price is still too high ($50 or so for TAD and $30 or so for the > GIF module) and the kick-in-the-head is that they offer a > "professional" version at $199 list that will save to all the modes > but also requires the external modules (at similar extra cost) to > address GIF and the other optionals. I cry "FOUL" and call that > a rip-off (no flames please, just IMHO). I think you're a little too price sensitive (if you don't want flames, don't go calling products "rip-offs"). To get color separation capabilities on any other micro platform would run you into the hundreds of dollars. I would commend ASDG for providing it at $89.95 (the actual list price for TAD, not $50.00 - and given that brings the price of TAD with a GIF module up to $120.00 retail, I am even more annoyed that you considered my product too expensive to even consider). By the way, modes like SHAM, Dynamic HiRes etc. really are limiting in that you can't do much else with the machine while they are active. I'm curious to know more about how people use these modes - are they just eye candy, or are they really useful? > EXTREMELY PERTINANT NOTE: ALL these programs can require LARGE amounts of > memory and computation time. TAD requires a large contiguous chunk of memory > and it TAKES as much as there is (no multi-tasking here unless you run the > other task first). The smaller that chunk, the more limited TAD > becomes quite quickly. The computation time is the result of the TAD and ImageLink were designed with differing philosophies. Each does what it set out to do very well. ImageLink can convert file formats in a limited amount of memory (if no color reductions are involved it can convert files in a one meg machine). TAD excels at interactive image processing for the Amiga display at the expense of large memory requirements. I'm sure both products and the Amiga will grow to overcome many of their limitations; I only hope the Amiga market will do the same. -Eric -- Eric Lavitsky UUCP: ...rutgers!tstream!eric Active Circuits, Inc. eric@topaz.rutgers.edu 908-974-1616 BIX: eric
drtiller@uokmax.uucp (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) (08/26/90)
Granted the programming effort involved in image format conversion is
challenging but I think it comes nowhere near that of say a Deluxe Paint III or
a Turbo Silver 3.0. What I am commenting on is the fact that (to use your own
most appropriate term) the pictures I convert are ONLY "eye candy" for my own
enjoyment. I can use TS or DPIII to create marketable items (well maybe not me
because my actual artistic ability is >nil:) but I am merely interested in
viewing them for my own enjoyment (and possibly impressing people enough for
them to buy another Amiga - something I get no remuneration for). I just can't
justify quite those prices for a conversion utility that does (IMHO) little in
the way of creativity and only makes the picture viewable (on ANY platform, I'm
tired of hearing that someone can charge a high price on the Amiga because
someone else is charging an exorbitant price on another computer - lame). I
heard about TAD's module format and thought they might have licked the price
question until I saw the prices. Let me talk actual numbers here so you can
see that I'm not trying to be unreasonable: I feel that $40 for the basic
TAD (without the Turbo Silver or Sculpt-Animate converters which now come with
it) is reasonable and $10-$20 for the conversion modules (allowing for
difficulty and copyright dues {doesn't Compuserve charge for using GIF?}).
When the "professional" version was released (something I am pissed that they
didn't tell me would exist when I bought it because I always intended to pass
my graphic gems back into the IBM/Mac world) I expected perhaps an upgrade at
$40-$50 and maybe $5-10 for the expansion modules. I hope you don't think
these prices too low because I am perfectly willing to pay (as you can see with
calculator in hand) around $120-$130 for the ability to to translate (BOTH
WAYS!) between IFF, GIF, Digi View 4.0, and Turbo Silver (I don't own SA, yet
another price complaint). As for color separation, I agree that professionals
should pay for this feature, but I'm no professional, only a rank amateur who
likes the "art of light" in the form of pretty pictures on my computer display.
I'll pay for it but $200 is a bit much (and the professional version of TAD is
even more ridiculous, especially when I ran out and bought the first version
and got screwed because they failed to tell me about the upcoming prof version
and offered me an unreasonable upgrade policy - letters are on the way).
Please realize that I can afford and justify a certain amount for my hobby, but
I operated on the principal that I should not have to pay more than a product
is worth (plus an author and retail mark-up) and the aforementioned products
are just above my opinion of their price. All this is especially true since
there are some reasonable PD programs which do the job adequately for nothing.
I was really looking for something all-in-one that perhaps added a few features
like better dithering or something.
Since you are the author of ImageLink, can you answer a couple of questions
about it:
What kind of size limitations are placed on the GIF images with adequate
memory (TAD will not let me load in a 1000x1000x256 GIF with 5 megs - 1000x
1000x256 = 1Meg, plenty of memory)?
Does it support the dynamic modes (yes the "eye candy" which improves images
considerably at the expense of doing much else, after all, I just view them in
slideshow fashion)?
Does it translate both ways between IFF-GIF (and the other modes which I'm not
the least bit interested in yet, because I don't have access to such pix)?
Does it support DV4.0, TS3.0, and SA (for info) RGB files?
Does it support ARexx?
Thanx for your interest and conversing with me like a resonable person with
minimal flames (actually I did not see much "flames" just an honest reaction
too my complaints - thanx).
_______ __________
_/____) ' __ /_/ / ' / / __ _ "N.I.N.J.A.J.I.S."-Me
/ \___/__/___/ |_ /__/__/__/_/_-_/__/_/ The Displaced Razorback.
___________________________________________/ Founder: IDGAFF Ltd.
The Amiga Computer - "...a more fiendish disputant than the Great
Hyperbolic Omni-Cognate Neutron Wrangler of Ciceronicus Twelve..."
-D.Adams; Well, almost.randy@csseq.tamu.edu (Randy Hutson) (08/27/90)
In article <2763@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >If you don't want to shrink the picture down so it fits on your Amiga screen, >then you need to be able to view a virtual picture. In other words, the GIF >will be in memory and your screen will be a window that you can slide around >and view different parts of it. The only program that does this for GIFs is >VirtGIF as far as I know, but you said you already tried that. And yes memory [text deleted] HamLab supports this. And with the Floyd-Steinberg dithering option turned on, I have found that HamLab produces much nicer looking pictures than any of the following GIF viewers or GIF-IFF converters: giffy hamgif iff2gif virtgif pbmplus gifmachine (GIF -> SHAM) hamsharp HamLab is fairly fast (about the speed of HamSharp; not as slow as GIFMachine). It can be configured to run on systems without much memory (at the expense of storing intermediate files on disk) or to use extra memory for more speed. I currently have the demo version of HamLab which crops all pictures to 512x512. For a $15 fee, you can order the full version from the author. (I ordered a few days ago.) I believe that I got HamLab off of abcfd20 ("new xanth"), but I couldn't find it there the last time I looked. However, you can get the demo version of HamLab (along with all of the other GIF software I mentioned above) by anonymous ftp to csseq.tamu.edu (128.194.2.20). Look in the /amiga directory. (There's nothing new there; just a lot of stuff I got from xanth and from Fred Fish disks.) Randy randy@csseq.tamu.edu
aaron@madnix.UUCP (Aaron Avery) (08/28/90)
>In article <1990Aug23.045556.17590@uokmax.uucp> drtiller@uokmax.uucp (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes: >> The Art Department (with _optional_ GIF module) will allow the >> intuitive loading and manipulating of a GIF picture (as well as RGB >> formats from Turbo Silver {I ray trace and go to a dynamic mode} the >> Sculpt series, Digi View 3.0 and Digi View 4.0) and saving it in any >> mode including Dynamic work-alikes of the NewTek versions (which are >> viewable with Dyna-Show although the version of TAD that I have >> doesn't work too well in this area, the files must be actually >> loaded into Digi View 4.0 and then re-saved for Dyna-Show to be able >> to read them). You can adjust all kinds of things with TAD including This surprises me a little, as I've never had trouble reading an ARES or AHAM image saved by TAD with Dyna-Show. Which version of Dyna-Show are you using, and what kind of trouble did you have? >> the price is still too high ($50 or so for TAD and $30 or so for the >> GIF module) and the kick-in-the-head is that they offer a >> "professional" version at $199 list that will save to all the modes >> but also requires the external modules (at similar extra cost) to >> address GIF and the other optionals. I cry "FOUL" and call that >> a rip-off (no flames please, just IMHO). As Eric so eloquently stated, considering that things like Adobe Photoshop for the Mac retail for $895, we think the price is quite reasonable. Some of those software companies haven't even put in the many years of work to make sure that the functions are done "right". One other note -- The Art Department Professional will include both loaders and savers for GIF, PCX, DPIIe and MacPaint formats besides the IFF, DV21,' Sculpt and Impulse formats already fully supported. It will include full, powerful ARexx support. Modular image operators to allow for more sophisticated image processing. You can also render in up to 256 colors with the same sophisticated dithering routines and an enhanced palette to save GIF and PCX images for your non-amiga friends to share. All this and current TAD owners can get it for $75. I know that sounds like a lot of money to some Amiga owners, especially with the amount of memory you may need to make full use of all those features. It's still a reasonable price in the grand scheme for a "rock-solid" piece of software which can be invaluable to many users. - Aaron -- Aaron Avery, ASDG Inc. "A mime is a terrible thing to waste." -- Robin Williams ARPA: madnix!aaron@cs.wisc.edu {uunet|ncoast}!marque! UUCP: {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!aaron
djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) (08/28/90)
Phew!
Big response to my original article, including from the authors of some of
the programs mentioned (HamGIF and GIFMachine). I have discovered some of my
problems, as relating to conversions that may help the discussion:
* Some programs need lots of stack (GIFtoIFF)
* Some (Most) programs need lots of memory
Since I only (!) have 1Meg, with lots of resident programs
to make the machine usable, this is a big problem.
* Some programs chop off images at the screen width/height
* Some crash (GIFtoIFF) on certain images
In response to several (mail) replies - I have come to the conclusion that
you need at least :-) a 68030 board, 4meg and a large hard disc to do
conversions easily and fast.
The program that I finally got working - HamSharp - did most of the images
I wanted except the largest ones 1192x900 bw Sun raster image (I think that's
the dimensions) The problem was lack of memory - obviously a single large
chunk is needed. This applied to other programs I tried also which barfed
at the size. It looks like I will have to write a UNIX version.
[Aside: Why call the program HamSharp - gives *NO* idea that the program is
a GIF to IFF conversion ! ]
HamLab: Shareware with crocking - I didn't bother since all my pictures are
>500x500 and I can convert them OK usually.
I tried FBM (Fuzzy BitMaps) off a fish disk. It also didn't work due to memory
problems. I even tried compiling the UNIX PBMPLUS toolkit on my Sun 4/330 but
it crashed. So much for portable software.
Some people mention converting to RGB format read by Digi-View. This is no
use to me since I do not own it, and anyway this probably takes up *even more*
space!
*ALL* I wanted was a simple FD converter program to look at some
FD images. By using a combination of several programs I nearly
get this.
[FD=Freely Distributable - a better term than PD in my opinion]
Any more comments? barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.24.20.43.26.1990.19054@emerald.rutgers.edu> eric@emerald.rutgers.edu (Eric Lavitsky) writes: >In article <1990Aug23.045556.17590@uokmax.uucp> drtiller@uokmax.uucp (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes: >> There are two commercial products which will allow decent GIF-IFF conversion >> but I've only had experience with one of them (I just read about the >> other one moments ago and at a list price of $199 I didn't really >> care what it was called). > >Well I care since you're probably talking about my product, ImageLink. >If you are looking for an image file conversion package, ImageLink is >competitively priced if you require support for a wide variety of >image formats (right out of the box). I don't think you realize how >much effort is involved in supporting all these formats, especially >when many of the more popular ones (PICT2 for example) are so horridly >documented. PBM supports about 3 times as many formats as ImageLink, and it's free. And it has all the other bells and whistles, too (scaling, color reduction, much more). >I think you're a little too price sensitive (if you don't want flames, >don't go calling products "rip-offs"). To get color separation >capabilities on any other micro platform would run you into the >hundreds of dollars. Being less familiar with other micros, I can't say you're wrong for a fact, but I do say this is an Amiga newsgroup. You can get PixMate for fifty bucks, and it is a full image processing package, with color separations just one minor feature. FBM, which is free, doesn't list color separation as a feature in the docs, but will do them (I've done 'em with FBM). For that matter, color separation is so simple that I could crank out a program to do it in an evening, and graphics programming on the Amiga is just a casual hobby for me. I won't call your program a ripoff, Eric. I'm willing to let the market make that determination. I will say that, when I saw your program in a store, I took it from the shelf, checked the features listed on the box, looked at the price, snorted, and put it back. I suppose some folks buy it, though I can't imagine why. I'm sure you worked hard on the program, that it probably works well, and you are free to charge whatever you think appropriate. But customers don't pay for effort, they pay for utility, and in the Amiga market, the same functionality can be had from PD and shareware. I can't think of a single function it performs that can't be had for free using PBM, or FBM, or RGBExchange (OK, that one's shareware), or one of the many other PD and shareware graphics utilities available on the Amiga. Can you? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: apple!netcom!barry
djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) (08/30/90)
Phew!
Big response to my original article, including from the authors of some of
the programs mentioned (HamGIF and GIFMachine). From the discussion, I have
made the following conclusions:
* Some programs need lots of stack
eg GIFtoIFF
* Some (Most) programs need lots of memory
eg FBM, GIFtoIFF, ...
Since I only (!) have 1Meg, with lots of resident programs
to make the machine usable, this is a problem.
* Some programs chop off images at the screen width/height
eg HamGIF , VirtGIF (unregistered versions)
* Some crash/hang on certain images
eg HamSharp and GIFtoIFF
In response to several (mail) replies - I have come to the conclusion that
you need at least :-) a 68030 board, 4meg and a large hard disc to do
conversions easily and fast.
The program that I finally got working - HamSharp - did most of the images
I wanted except the largest ones 1192x900 bw Sun raster image (I think that's
the dimensions) The problem was lack of memory - obviously a single large
chunk is needed. This applied to other programs I tried also which barfed
at the size. It looks like I will have to write a UNIX version. The ones that
it didn't do, I used GIFtoIFF to do.
[Aside: Why call the program HamSharp - gives *NO* idea that the program is
a GIF to IFF conversion ! ]
HamLab: Shareware with crocking - I didn't bother since all my pictures are
>500x500 and I can convert them OK usually.
I tried FBM (Fuzzy BitMaps) off a fish disk. It also didn't work due to memory
problems. I even tried compiling the UNIX PBMPLUS toolkit on my Sun 4/330 but
it crashed. So much for portable software.
Some people mention converting to RGB format read by Digi-View. This is no
use to me since I do not own it, and anyway this probably takes up *even more*
space!
As for displaying the images, thats no problem, I have a disk full of file
viewers that can display most of the types. I have had *no* problem displaying
a 1152x900 picture on my Native 1.3 Amiga (came with new chipset).
*ALL* I wanted was a simple FD converter program to look at some
FD images. By using a combination of several programs I nearly
get this.
[FD=Freely Distributable - a better term than PD in my opinion]
Any more comments?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Beckett | djb1@ukc.ac.uk
Computing Lab., University of Kent, Canterbury,Kent,UK | ..!mcsun!ukc!djb1jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (09/01/90)
In article <5373@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> djb1@ukc.ac.uk (David Beckett) writes: >I tried FBM (Fuzzy BitMaps) off a fish disk. It also didn't work due to memory >problems. I even tried compiling the UNIX PBMPLUS toolkit on my Sun 4/330 but >it crashed. So much for portable software. Did you use gcc? If so, that's why it crashed. (gcc doesn't get along with the sparc architecture at the current release. Has to do with how structs are passed on the stack, I think.) I use pbmplus for *all* of my image conversion needs. And it's neato. :-) -- J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics (713) 749-2120 Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Skate UNIX(r)
aaron@madnix.UUCP (Aaron Avery) (09/06/90)
In article <12896@netcom.UUCP> barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > Being less familiar with other micros, I can't say you're wrong >for a fact, but I do say this is an Amiga newsgroup. You can get >PixMate for fifty bucks, and it is a full image processing package, >with color separations just one minor feature. FBM, which is free, >doesn't list color separation as a feature in the docs, but will do >them (I've done 'em with FBM). For that matter, color separation is so >simple that I could crank out a program to do it in an evening, and >graphics programming on the Amiga is just a casual hobby for me. First of all, we're talking about 24-bit color image manipulation and processing here, so PixMate is completely out of the picture. On the PC, for example, there's a piece of software which sells for $199 which merely reads in a Targa file, converts it to 8-bit color and writes it out in PCX format. This is the kind of bang/buck comparison which was being made. FBM, which is free, is nice. It's slow. It's also not for everyone (i.e. It has no 'real' user interface.). As to color separation, what was being discussed was the complicated matter of converting 24-bit color RGB data into professional-quality cyan, magenta, yellow and black four-color separations. This is not something which can be done properly in an evening of hacking, believe me (or the dozens of people in comp.graphics who have spent more time musing over the problem than I have). If FBM suits your needs, great! There are many people whose needs it doesn't suit, and for those people there are now good, commercial solutions available. - Aaron -- Aaron Avery, ASDG Inc. "A mime is a terrible thing to waste." -- Robin Williams ARPA: madnix!aaron@cs.wisc.edu {uunet|ncoast}!marque! UUCP: {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!aaron
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (09/07/90)
In article <12896@netcom.UUCP> barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > You can get > PixMate for fifty bucks, and it is a full image processing package, > with color separations just one minor feature. FBM, which is free, > doesn't list color separation as a feature in the docs, but will do > them (I've done 'em with FBM). For that matter, color separation is so > simple that I could crank out a program to do it in an evening, and > graphics programming on the Amiga is just a casual hobby for me. You just blew it. What do you think color separation is? Splitting a 24-bit image into it's red, green, and blue components? No. It's splitting it into it's yellow, magenta, and cyan components. The basic RGB->CYM formula is really easy. One look at the color wheel from your 5th grade art class. You can "invent" the simple formula yourself. Right? Ever look at the results of the "simple" formula? Looks like crap. Oh, it's good for "a night of hacking;" but not for professional work. So, you make adjustments and it looks fine, right? Try a different printer. Damn. It looks like crap again. More adjustments. Buy a different brand of ink. Damn. Looks like crap again. You need to keep in mind different constants depending on what brand of inks, brand of printer, printing method, etc. Researching different inks is not something that an evening of hacking can do. State of the art color separation RIGHT NOW is only available on mainframes. (send me email for footnotes) Don't even look at Mac's. Look at Amigas if you want professional quality at PC prices. Disclaimer 1: I don't own TAD or ImageLink but I have seen both being used (demoed and professionally). Also, I have eaten in diners with both Perry (TAD) and Eric (ImageLink) sometimes simultaniously. Disclaimer 2: I used the PBM Utilities for certain things. For example, they're here on this Sun 4 where I have plenty of CPU time to burn and virtual memory to handle images of any size I want. PBM is particularly good for re-packing GIFs because it reads in any GIF but writes it out using only certain directives (i.e. none of the new directives that VirtGIF or GIFmachine use) My opinionated statements are not about the above products, but about color separation. -Tom limonce@pilot.njin.net tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli tlimonce@drew.Bitnet