zmacv14@tsun8.doc.ic.ac.uk.doc.ic.ac.uk (C P Brown) (01/31/90)
People who criticise the Amiga's graphics on the basis of comparison with any
other machine should remember that:
1 - The Amiga has had ALL of its display modes since at least '82
2 - You can buy this technology for #400
3 - The display is utterly flexible; you choose the mode and the number of
colours that suit you, plus many different screens multidisplaying etc.
4 - IBMs et al have only had VGA for a year or two, and the vast majority still
have Mono, CGA or EGA.
I think that familiarity has bred dissent with the Amiga and that we only want
more/better graphics because that is human nature and we've been fiddling with
them for five years. They are still the best graphics on any machine available
costing sub $10000. Maybe they will improve drastically over the next few
years, hardware-wise (1.5? 8-}). OK, so 256+ colours on screen would be nice,
as would 2^24 colour palette. But it is crass to expect this level of graphic
support/ability at current prices. So you want PIXAR support? This is kind of
specialist, and you expect C= to produce a nice easily affordable machine that
suits your needs perfectly?
So I say, if you think that the Amiga has limited graphics, fine; vote with
your wallet and buy something else, just don't moan about the Amiga not
being suitable for every single job you want to put it to.
Phil Brownnavas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (02/01/90)
In article <5501@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) writes: >The problem mainly is that if you go down any of these paths >it can be a great solution for yourself but how many other people will have >the same solution so that you have customers to sell your software too? > > Wayne Knapp [I can't believe I'm responding to this thread...] Isn't this the same argument used to say that developing for RenderMan [or whatever it was] on the IBM was pretty pointless too....??? If the software is *real* good, maybe you could talk to the manufacturers of the hardware and cut some kind of deal... And now, don't we have a problem with this kind of argument anyway? No one buys the hardware cause there ain't no software, and no one writes the software, because no one has bought the hardware... I thought the Amiga community was beyond such arguments [we all took a risk buying the machine, and many of us are taking a risk developing for it...]? David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (02/01/90)
In <13236@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, gregg@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (gregg.g.wonderly) writes: >From article <02030.AA02030@sosaria>, by wizard@sosaria.UUCP (Chris Brand): >> I totally agree. The standards on the Amiga are heaven on earth. > >Not to be nasty, but my frame of reference is a little different than yours... > >Let's see... > > Matt Dillon's UUCP requires the NULL device which I don't have... > (it wasn't standard with my Amiga!). > > Steve Koren's SKSH requires arp.library which I didn't have the right > version of (it wasn't standard with my Amiga!) Sure, and Hack requires data files that don't come standard with the Amiga. C'Mon... these things you speak of are tools that someone saw a need for and provided. Others saw a need to use them, and did so. You cannot expect CBM to provide every possible permutation of every type of device or library. NULL: and arp.library, should you 'choose not to use them', will certainly prevent you from using certain packages. It has nothing to do with standards. -larry -- This life is a test. It is only a test. If this had been a real life, you would have been told where to go and what to do. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (02/01/90)
wizard@sosaria.UUCP (Chris Brand) writes: |In message <1343@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: ||3> In 640 x 400 mode, VGA is *S L O W*, even on a 386 machine. Dpaint II |Agreed when it comes to VGA. BUT...why is everybody talking about VGA? VGA |is not the only graphics card available for messydos. I've recently talked |to someone who works for Autodesk. He told me about the Autodesk Renderman |with that graphics card..uh, what was its name again...anyway, you can |even play those Pixar films on it. Of course you can't render them in THAT |quality, but it still must be one of the most impressing graphics systems. |BUT - suppose I had the money to buy the Renderman with that card, I had |to get a messydos machine. That's the problem. I CAN'T expand my Amiga to |more graphics power. Well Chris, let's suppose you did have enough cash to buy this nifty video card and the Autodesk Renderman program. The problem would be that the video card would be totally useless on any other application except the AutoDESK Renderman program. That's why everyone is comparing the Amiga to the VGA systems, VGA is the closest (hah!) IBM can claim to a *standard* video card. Everything else is so specialized that nobody supports it. To me that is the big advantage of the Amiga over IBM, the standard Graphics, file formats, and system drivers. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 We are the people our parents warned us about.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (02/01/90)
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) writes: >Dynamic HAM is very poor for rendering. You only have 12 or 13 colors per >scanline to work with and if you are trying to shade objects there just >isn't enough colors to work with. I worked on it for over a month but I >wasn't able to get acceptable results. Finally I cut the horizontial res. Wrong! Dynamic HAM has 16 (or maybe it *is* only 12 or 13) color *REGISTERS* per scan line. You use those registers inconjuction with HAM to come up with many more colors, just as you use regular HAM, which has 16 color registers per *screen* At least this is how I understand it works from what I read in my Digiview 4.0 manual. I digitized some regular HAM pictures (in low res) and then displayed them in the low-res Dynamic HAM mode (DynaHam works in low and High res) and it did not lose anything but the fringing. The edges were much sharper. It is painfully slow tho. -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 We are the people our parents warned us about.
baer@qiclab.UUCP (Ken Baer) (02/02/90)
In article <+!1^3&@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: |How many people on Dross machines have these big |Targa cards and such that you're raving about, anyway? LOTS! There are probably as many Targa boards out there as Amigas. Incidentally, many of the ray traced images that are in magazine ads for Amiga programs, were rendered into Targa boards (Sculpt4D, Opticks, et. al.). |Sure, maybe 20% |have VGA by now (if that) but I'd bet there are fewer than 50,000 of |these high-end boards you're talking about. Oh well. Guess again. |-- |Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@pawl.rpi.edu| -- // -Ken Baer. Programmer/Animator, Hash Enterprises. \X/ Usenet: baer@qiclab.UUCP or PLink: KEN BAER "I want to be an ..... ARCH VILLIAN!!!" -- Petey Pate.
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (02/03/90)
In article <3973@qiclab.UUCP> baer@qiclab.UUCP (Ken Baer) writes: >In article <+!1^3&@rpi.edu> kudla@pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >|How many people on Dross machines have these big >|Targa cards and such that you're raving about, anyway? > >LOTS! There are probably as many Targa boards out there as Amigas. >Incidentally, many of the ray traced images that are in magazine ads I have a hard time believing that there are over one million TARGA boards in existance... Could somebody with some *real* numbers please post? Thank You! >|-- Okay -- how about ~200,000... >-- > \X/ Usenet: baer@qiclab.UUCP or PLink: KEN BAER David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (02/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM I'm sorry if this sounds as if I'm "flaming", but why feel as though you're stuck with the BASE graphics capabilities??? Why not purchase a FrameBuffer? At roughly $750 (with Frame Capture), it's alot cheaper than even the Targa16...then you can have a pallette of 16.7M to work with. Or purchase ImageLink from Active Circuits and use a Targa/Vista board for even superior images. I realise that this is an expensive way to go, considering you have to purchase a BridgeBoard...but there is a trade off...software. There isn't anything for a clone with the power of Sculpt/Animate 4D or Turbo Silver 3.0, that's in their price class. If you are a more conventional artist, and aren't interested in doing three dimensional renderings, then you can disregard this message, and I appologize...I too am frustrated with the lack of an "artistically" functional true-color solution for the Amiga. I'm hoping that the Video-Toaster, or the V-Machine will fill this gap...or maybe even some software written for one of the graphics transputers. It makes me upset that, yeah, the Amiga beats a clone with VGA, or a Mac ][ in their base configurations...but if someone IS willing to spend the money for better resolution/color, they almost CAN'T on an Amiga at this point...unless they wish to write their own software... Sean Cunningham
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (02/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM I agree with you about there needing to be Commodore support...we NEED higher resolutions...larger color palettes, etc. Does anyone know anything about when the PVA is supposed to be available? I can name about 10 people right off hand that would be willing to spend the kind of money on an enhancement card like the PVA, the Video Toaster, or the V-Machine...a few of them work for the two TV stations that I installed Amiga systems in. I have a question though, if you are having problems with the color changes of multiple objects on the same line, then why is it possible for NewTek to get EXCELLENT results? I'm refering to their Dynamic HiRes slideshow...the picture of the *VERY* colorful rock collection is superb. And the closeup of the face shows that it Dynamic HiRes can even handle facial tones (though ther was some SLIGHT banding)... Sean Cunningham
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (02/03/90)
In-Reply-To: message from sdl@lyra.mitre.org
To answer part of your final question...there are THREE (3) ways to get higher
resolution and/or more color out of an Amiga:
1. Digital Animation Creation's video transputer board
is available...
2. The Mimetics FrameBuffer/Capture board is available...
3. And the VD-1 from Impulse is available...
ImageLink from Active circuits is available, though it isn't in it's final
form yet (last I heard)...
Sean Cunninghambarry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (02/04/90)
In article <1349@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >I have a question though, if you are having problems with the color changes of >multiple objects on the same line, then why is it possible for NewTek to get >EXCELLENT results? I'm refering to their Dynamic HiRes slideshow...the >picture of the *VERY* colorful rock collection is superb. Just a guess, but the description of Dynamic HiRes I read said they were using dithering in addition to the palette changes. Kayembee
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (02/06/90)
zmacv14@tsun8.doc.ic.ac.uk.doc.ic.ac.uk (C P Brown) writes: >People who criticise the Amiga's graphics on the basis of comparison with any >other machine should remember that: >1 - The Amiga has had ALL of its display modes since at least '82 The Amiga only came out in '85. But anyway, all us gripers are saying is that it's time for something new. >I think that familiarity has bred dissent with the Amiga and that we only want >more/better graphics because that is human nature and we've been fiddling with >them for five years. They are still the best graphics on any machine available >costing sub $10000. Huh? IBM '386 with SUPER VGA and all the trimmings is only around $3K and SUPER VGA *IS* better than any Amiga modes (640 x 480 @ 256colors) but the problem with Super VGA is that is is not compatible with hardly software. >So I say, if you think that the Amiga has limited graphics, fine; vote with >your wallet and buy something else, just don't moan about the Amiga not >being suitable for every single job you want to put it to. moan, moan. :-) actually the Amiga is fine for what I do with it, but it could be better. I think it's time we asked for better graphics. If we don't let CBM know that we want something better than we have, then CBM probably won't bother improving it till they are way behind in the market. I would rather complain and convince CBM to improve, than to just abandon them and buy something else, because I like CBM and they deserve my support. consider it "loving criticism" :-) -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406 Help fight continental drift.
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (02/07/90)
In article <13236@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> gregg@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (gregg.g.wonderly) writes:
))From article <02030.AA02030@sosaria>, by wizard@sosaria.UUCP (Chris Brand):
))> I totally agree. The standards on the Amiga are heaven on earth.
))
))Not to be nasty, but my frame of reference is a little different than yours...
))
))Let's see...
))
)) Matt Dillon's UUCP requires the NULL device which I don't have...
)) (it wasn't standard with my Amiga!).
))
)) Steve Koren's SKSH requires arp.library which I didn't have the right
)) version of (it wasn't standard with my Amiga!)
))
))That makes two really useful packages potential headaches because they
))depend on other non-standard packages that I may or may not (choose) to
))have. I am sure that there are other examples of these kinds of things.
))
))Sure the written standards in the manuals are great, but what about the
))software that Commodore is actually backing to support that. If I have to
Let me get this straight, you are complaiining because a couple of FREE
Public domain programs do not follow standards????
Since when is Commodore or any other computer manufacturer required to
support or acknowledge Public domain software?? It seems to me if they do
choose to support ARP and NULL then more power to them, but don't complain
because some very talented hackers have made some useful utilities that
are not supported by CBM....yet. Your only complaint is to the authors
if they failed to include a necessary package as part of thier distrubution.
Don't Rag on Commodore they wrote the standards, they didn't write the utilities
If a person chooses to go out side the standards and generate something
different, thats fine, but again they have not violated any standard, they
simply extended it for there own needs. If a few others decide to use thier
code and it is adopted by the Manufacturer, THEN it must be supported! As
yet ARP is not suppported ( but probably soon will be :) ).
Monty Sainekent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (02/08/90)
In article <1397@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: [...] >moan, moan. :-) actually the Amiga is fine for what I do with it, but it >could be better. I think it's time we asked for better graphics. If we >don't let CBM know that we want something better than we have, then CBM >probably won't bother improving it till they are way behind in the market. >I would rather complain and convince CBM to improve, than to just abandon >them and buy something else, because I like CBM and they deserve my support. I agree. Hope you guys will forgive me. I've held my tongue for a long time, but I'm about to bite it off. The Amiga is set to be a fabulous technical computer. There are only a few things missing to allow it to be such. One is adequate graphics. I realize that many of you seem to want it to be just for home uses, but there is really no other system poised to fill so many voids like the Amiga is. Give it a chance. Ok, now... Proposition: How about the Lowell card with Intuition support? The card has the right stuff - maybe at too high a price for some, but it needs Intuition support to be useful. I could start using Amigas for many projects here at work if I had Intuition or X11 support for the Lowell card. Without it, I can't use the Amiga. The standard graphics are simply not adequate: resolution (need 512 height for fft stuff), need 256 color levels for image processing display, need 8 bit pixel organization for changing colors by changing the color scale before tomorrow comes (not having to re-write all the pixels at the incredibly slow WritePixel() rate). While the current bitplane configuration may be neat for animation, etc. It is totally inadequate for technical image and data processing applications. I need instead to be able to set a color map & give a pointer to an array & have it be displayed in one simple operation - like on the big boys :^). I need to do color map changes on increments other than bitplane boundaries. Also, check the speed on a 16 color high-res screen. Incredibly slow. (etc., etc., etc.) Instead of discouraging high-end graphics cards, please let those of us who need them pay for them & have true OS support for them. ==================================================================== Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu Motto : "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing" ====================================================================
GORRIEDE@UREGINA1.BITNET (Dennis Robert Gorrie) (02/12/90)
NewTek calls it Dynamic Hi-Res HAM mode; I am not sure what you call it. But, at any rate, you are not giving it the credit this display mode deserves. Even if your palette is limited, and palette selection is poor, you can still achieve images MORE impressive than the usual HAM modes if you use dithering effectively. The improved dithering is what makes the hi-res mode useful (at least for those who have good dithering routines)
garth@ccicpg.UUCP (Garth Armover acct) (02/16/90)
References: <02030.AA02030@sosaria> <5487@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <+!1^3&@rpi.edu> <5494@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <WW11^=@rpi.edu> <1521@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Sender: Reply-To: garth@ccicpg.UUCP (Garth Armorer acct) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: ICL North America, Irvine CA Keywords: In article <1521@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> zmacv14@doc.ic.ac.uk (Phil Brown) writes: > >People who criticise the Amiga's graphics on the basis of comparison with any >other machine should remember that: > >1 - The Amiga has had ALL of its display modes since at least '82 >2 - You can buy this technology for #400 >3 - The display is utterly flexible; you choose the mode and the number of > colours that suit you, plus many different screens multidisplaying etc. >4 - IBMs et al have only had VGA for a year or two, and the vast majority still > have Mono, CGA or EGA. > >I think that familiarity has bred dissent with the Amiga and that we only want >more/better graphics because that is human nature and we've been fiddling with >them for five years. They are still the best graphics on any machine available >costing sub $10000. Maybe they will improve drastically over the next few >years, hardware-wise (1.5? 8-}). OK, so 256+ colours on screen would be nice, >as would 2^24 colour palette. But it is crass to expect this level of graphic >support/ability at current prices. So you want PIXAR support? This is kind of >specialist, and you expect C= to produce a nice easily affordable machine that >suits your needs perfectly? > >So I say, if you think that the Amiga has limited graphics, fine; vote with ^^^^^^^^^^ >your wallet and buy something else, just don't moan about the Amiga not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >being suitable for every single job you want to put it to. > >Phil Brown AMEN!!! And quit bitching about/for what you probably couldn't afford anyway. I suspect, Phil, that most people doing the moaning and complaining are doing so just to be able to boast to their friends that their machine is capable of having/doing all the doo-dahs even though the system they currently own does not have 'the' neat feature because 'I' can't afford it. They probably don't even have a hard disk. To paraphrase the movie "4th of July", 'Some people say they don't like the Amiga, I say if you don't like the Amiga then get the hell off it' #:). "Sexism is Next to Racism" --GEA. Garth E. Armorer Part of the cheerleading song of Norfolk U. "We don't smoke, we don't drink, Norfolk, Norfolk" Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Faith in the Amiga Summary: Expires: References: <02030.AA02030@sosaria> <5487@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <+!1^3&@rpi.edu> <5494@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <WW11^=@rpi.edu> <1521@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Sender: Reply-To: garth@ccicpg.UUCP (Garth Armover acct) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: ICL North America, Irvine CA Keywords: Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Faith in the Amiga Summary: Expires: References: <02030.AA02030@sosaria> <5487@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <+!1^3&@rpi.edu> <5494@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <WW11^=@rpi.edu> <1521@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Sender: Reply-To: garth@ccicpg.UUCP (Garth Armorer acct) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: ICL North America, Irvine CA Keywords: In article <1521@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> zmacv14@doc.ic.ac.uk (Phil Brown) writes: > >People who criticise the Amiga's graphics on the basis of comparison with any >other machine should remember that: > >1 - The Amiga has had ALL of its display modes since at least '82 >2 - You can buy this technology for #400 >3 - The display is utterly flexible; you choose the mode and the number of > colours that suit you, plus many different screens multidisplaying etc. >4 - IBMs et al have only had VGA for a year or two, and the vast majority still > have Mono, CGA or EGA. > >I think that familiarity has bred dissent with the Amiga and that we only want >more/better graphics because that is human nature and we've been fiddling with >them for five years. They are still the best graphics on any machine available >costing sub $10000. Maybe they will improve drastically over the next few >years, hardware-wise (1.5? 8-}). OK, so 256+ colours on screen would be nice, >as would 2^24 colour palette. But it is crass to expect this level of graphic >support/ability at current prices. So you want PIXAR support? This is kind of >specialist, and you expect C= to produce a nice easily affordable machine that >suits your needs perfectly? > >So I say, if you think that the Amiga has limited graphics, fine; vote with ^^^^^^^^^^ >your wallet and buy something else, just don't moan about the Amiga not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >being suitable for every single job you want to put it to. > >Phil Brown AMEN!!! And quit bitching about/for what you probably couldn't afford anyway. I suspect, Phil, that most people doing the moaning and complaining are doing so just to be able to boast to their friends that their machine is capable of having/doing all the doo-dahs even though the system they currently own does not have 'the' neat feature because 'I' can't afford it. They probably don't even have a hard disk. To paraphrase the movie "4th of July", 'Some people say they don't like the Amiga, I say if you don't like the Amiga then get the hell off it' #:). "Sexism is Next to Racism" --GEA. Garth E. Armorer Part of the cheerleading song of Norfolk U. "We don't smoke, we don't drink, Norfolk, Norfolk"