waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (01/09/90)
In article <5965@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, pa1158@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (RenderMan) writes: > > If this thing hits the streets, it'll blow away competing > framebuffers and really nail down the Amiga as a viable raytracing > tool. Imagine, 24bit animations! DPaint with 256 colors! Boy, > those palette sliders will have to be modified to support 256 shades > instead of only 16! That is the major problem with the BlackBelt video box. First programs will have to be modified to work with it before you are going to see much use out of it. Now new software may find it easy to put in a black belt mode but it will take a lot of time before any old program will be able to use the new modes. Also I have some doults as to how well it is going to work for animation. The main problem is the color palette. 256 colors * 3 bytes per color is 2048 bytes. A 704 x 480 hi-res screen uses 88 bytes per line which means that it takes about 24 lines plus whatever overhead to load the palette. If the palette is changing on every frame this will be a problem when people start recording to video as it may start getting into the veiwable image producing a short screen. This wouldn't be so bad except people have come to expect proper overscan from the amiga. Perhaps it would be possible to use a little larger screen and reduce this problem. Another more pressing problem is that the Amiga runs slowly in the high res. 4 bit plane mode since there is a limit to how fast the CHIP RAM can be accesed. Adding overscan slows the system down more and the net effect is much slower updating of the CHIP memory that leads to slower animation. Finally a different issue and that these guys don't even seem to have hardware to loan to people and it seems that they want programmers to send them $300 before even seeing the product and then to also take a great deal of time and update what ever program they have written to use the new (but, very nice) display modes. Since software sales have been very soft on the Amiga this last year I think a lot of people including myself will have to think very hard before supporting this product. Wayne Knapp
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (01/10/90)
In article <5326@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > >Also I have some doults as to how well it is going to work for animation. >The main problem is the color palette. 256 colors * 3 bytes per color is >2048 bytes. A 704 x 480 hi-res screen uses 88 bytes per line which means >that it takes about 24 lines plus whatever overhead to load the palette. Whoa! Think about what you are saying. Yes, it takes 3 bytes to load a palette register on the Black Belt. However, this does not take 8 pixels. a byte of data is only 2 pixels (4 bitplanes x 2 pixels) so it only take 6 pixels per palette register. Given your example of 704 horizontal resolution, it would only take at most 3 scan lines. (about 116 registers per scan line.) for a normal screen it would only take 3 scan lines as well (106 / line) This to me is completely reasonable. I could quite happily live with a 320x196 of 320x396 screen in "normal" not overscan modes. And, I intend to buy one of these things for my amiga when it comes out. I would probably figure out overscan and set up 3 extra lines of data to deal with the special data for the Black Belt Card. I have a gif viewer almost ready for it :-) brian moffet
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (01/10/90)
In article <5326@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
<
<Also I have some doults as to how well it is going to work for animation.
<The main problem is the color palette. 256 colors * 3 bytes per color is
<2048 bytes. A 704 x 480 hi-res screen uses 88 bytes per line which means
<that it takes about 24 lines plus whatever overhead to load the palette.
<
< Wayne Knapp
I think that should be 88 bytes/line/bitplane? At four bitplanes, 2048
bytes takes 6 display lines. So the screen-real-estate problem isn't
really that bad. The big problems lie in bootstrapping a critical mass of
users and developers for this device. (Though I'll probably go for it just
to hack around with, even if no commercial software ever uses it.)
Cheers,
Charles Poirierwaynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (01/10/90)
In article <4351@scolex.sco.COM>, brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) writes: . . In article <5326@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: . > . >Also I have some doults as to how well it is going to work for animation. . >The main problem is the color palette. 256 colors * 3 bytes per color is . >2048 bytes. A 704 x 480 hi-res screen uses 88 bytes per line which means . >that it takes about 24 lines plus whatever overhead to load the palette. . . Whoa! Think about what you are saying. Yes, it takes 3 bytes to . load a palette register on the Black Belt. However, this does not . take 8 pixels. a byte of data is only 2 pixels (4 bitplanes x 2 pixels) . so it only take 6 pixels per palette register. UGH! I did mess up! I was computing on only one bit-plane. There are of coarse four bit-planes in the 16 color mode. However the point about slow animation is valid. Prehaps the title should have been: "Black Blet Video - not a great solution for high speed animation." Sorry about the mis-inforation and thanks for pointing out my error. Wayne Knapp
ln63wkp@sdcc4.ucsd.edu (RenderMan) (01/10/90)
>UGH! I did mess up! I was computing on only one bit-plane. There are >of coarse four bit-planes in the 16 color mode. However the point about >slow animation is valid. Prehaps the title should have been: > >"Black Blet Video - not a great solution for high speed animation." It seems that most people who do serious raytracing/animations are equiped with 020/030 boards so anim playback is extremely fast. I believe the sluggishness in the new HAM-E modes will be minimal on an 030/32bit platform. Are there any anim players our there which will put out animations recorded with different palettes per frame? I know it will be slow on 68000 Amigas but on an 020/030 32bit setup may be minimal. I think PhotonPaint lets you save HAM anims with different palettes. The J-Type anim format used by Sculpt4D sure doesn't like it when you have different palettes (in fact it won't compress them). IFF ANIM compressors do seem to take in pics with different palettes but they don't seem to play back correctly. -Viet vho@ucsd.edu
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (01/10/90)
Wayne Knapp wrote... Since software sales have been very soft on the Amiga this last year I think a lot of people including myself will have to think very hard before supporting this product. ===== End of quote ===== That's funny... one of the Computer trade magazines quoted Amiga SOFTWARE sales up 27%! - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (01/11/90)
In article <5998@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ln63wkp@sdcc4.ucsd.edu (RenderMan) writes: > >"Black Blet Video - not a great solution for high speed animation." > > It seems that most people who do serious raytracing/animations are > equiped with 020/030 boards so anim playback is extremely fast. > I believe the sluggishness in the new HAM-E modes will be minimal > on an 030/32bit platform. > ... It doesn't matter if you have a Cray in your Amiga. The bottle-neck Is the CHIP RAM, and you can't go any faster than you can put inforamtion into the chip RAM. In the high res. 4 bit-plane mode, most of the time the CHIP RAM is busy putting out the display and the processor if often forced to wait if it needs to update the CHIP RAM. The screen being looked at has to reside in the CHIP RAM so there is no way around this problem. Of coarse you could single-frame the BlackBelt modes, but if you have that much equipment anyway why not go with something really good like a Targa board? However I did see a lot 32000 color low res. pictures in Japan on the FM Towns and they looked great, so I sure a lot of people will really like the BlackBelt video add on. It is just I don't think it will be as great for Ray-Traced animation as some people think. Wayne Knapp
waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (01/11/90)
In article <25781@cup.portal.com>, Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: -> Since software sales have been very soft on the -> Amiga this last year I think a lot of people including myself will have to -> think very hard before supporting this product. > > That's funny... one of the Computer trade magazines quoted Amiga SOFTWARE > sales up 27%! Now that is funny! I almost spit coffee out of my mouth onto the screen when I saw your comment. I don't know where the trade magazine got it's information from, but I know of a lot of programmers that wish it were true. Maybe the Amiga software sales are only soft in the desktop video/ graphics market? Wayne Knapp
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/11/90)
In article <5350@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: |In article <25781@cup.portal.com>, Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: |-| Since software sales have been very soft on the |-| Amiga this last year I think a lot of people including myself will have to |-| think very hard before supporting this product. || || That's funny... one of the Computer trade magazines quoted Amiga SOFTWARE || sales up 27%! | |Now that is funny! I almost spit coffee out of my mouth onto the screen |when I saw your comment. I don't know where the trade magazine got it's |information from, but I know of a lot of programmers that wish it were |true. Maybe the Amiga software sales are only soft in the desktop video/ |graphics market? Now that's funny :-), since my royalties have been up 50% since last November and overall we had much higher sales in 1989 than in 1988. And my product is NOT a game. Somebody must be doing something right at CBM. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (01/11/90)
In ; > Resp: 1 of 2 by *Masked* at tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM >Author: [Wayne Knapp] > Date: Wed Jan 10 1990 00:13 Writes: >That is the major problem with the BlackBelt video box. First programs >will have to be modified to work with it before you are going to see SO how DO you make a change in graphics ability and NOT have to modify programs to use it ???? (NOTE that the box >IS< down compatible.) It is important to note that in most cases no mod >IS< needed in 99% of the cases . For example, ANY normal IFF show routines will show new BB pictures WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATION! >Finally a different issue and that these guys don't even seem to have >hardware to loan to people and it seems that they want programmers to send >them $300 before even seeing the product and then to also take a great deal Don't know many small companies that can do it a different way . **************************************************************************** Everything I say is (c) 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (01/12/90)
In article <25ab4d8a:3739.3comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP>, tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: > > >That is the major problem with the BlackBelt video box. First programs > >will have to be modified to work with it before you are going to see > > SO how DO you make a change in graphics ability and NOT have to modify > programs to use it ???? (NOTE that the box >IS< down compatible.) > > It is important to note that in most cases no mod >IS< needed in 99% of the > cases . For example, ANY normal IFF show routines will show new BB pictures > WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATION! So what? It doesn't help you one bit. Just what programs are you going to use to make these new pictures? I think that for some time this box will only be something that is kind of neat but not very useful. Programs will have to modified to use the new Black Belt video modes. You guys are not using your brains! Think just how are you going to make these fantastic 24 bit pictures. The only things I know could be done at present is to render a 24 bit picture and then use a program to convert to a IFF file in the proper format. The onther way is to borrow a picture from some other computer. Until someone comes out with a new paint program or updates a old program you will not be able to paint in these modes. Also seems like this box will have a limited market, maybe a few thousand units a most, so I don't see a lot of software getting updated for it. The box is neat and will have a market but there are some real problems that people are not realizing. Wayne Knapp P.S. However I do think this box is a much better solution than things like Sliced HAM and other screen hacks. Most likely I will support the box with my new programs since I'm already producing 24 bit files. However I still think support for the box will be slow in coming.
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (01/12/90)
>into the chip RAM. In the high res. 4 bit-plane mode, most of the time >the CHIP RAM is busy putting out the display and the processor if often >forced to wait if it needs to update the CHIP RAM. The screen being looked I am sorry for sounding naive about this , but do you mean ti imply that I cant fill a 640x400x4 plane screen in under 1/60th of a second? Th NUMBER of colors in the BB box is NOT relevant in this case, since the AMOUNt of data will be EXACTLY that as for the 640x400x4 (wich is what the amiga see's it as). I hope this isnt the case because the some demos I have seen will take the news pretty hard. **************************************************************************** Everything I say is (c) 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (01/13/90)
In article <25781@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes:
<Wayne Knapp wrote...
<
<Since software sales have been very soft on the
<Amiga this last year I think a lot of people including myself will have to
<think very hard before supporting this product.
<
<===== End of quote =====
<
<That's funny... one of the Computer trade magazines quoted Amiga SOFTWARE
<sales up 27%!
To get the whole story, though, you have to consider the number of titles
available. If (I say, *if*) the number of titles also increased by 27%,
the average title wouldn't have seen any increase in sales.
Cheers,
Charles Poirierpoirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (01/13/90)
In article <5347@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes:
<
<It doesn't matter if you have a Cray in your Amiga. The bottle-neck
<Is the CHIP RAM, and you can't go any faster than you can put inforamtion
<into the chip RAM. In the high res. 4 bit-plane mode, most of the time
<the CHIP RAM is busy putting out the display and the processor if often
<forced to wait if it needs to update the CHIP RAM. The screen being looked
<at has to reside in the CHIP RAM so there is no way around this problem.
<
<....It is just I don't think it will be
<as great for Ray-Traced animation as some people think.
<
< Wayne Knapp
Pardon my ignorance, as I'm not sufficiently into the animation scene,
but this implies that the Amiga, whether stock or accelerated, can't do
a good job of regular 16-color high-res four-plane animation? This surprises
me a little, as I can't remember hearing anybody complaining about it
before now. Anyone have some sample data on high-res frame rates?
Cheers,
Charles Poiriertron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (01/13/90)
>are not using your brains! Think just how are you going to make these >fantastic 24 bit pictures. The only things I know could be done at present >is to render a 24 bit picture and then use a program to convert to a IFF The only thing we need for THAT is a few of us to write the converters... for example, with a converter from the SILVER 24 bit format , the SCULT 24bit output , and QRT and DBW. We are almost all set . Perssonally , all >I< need is the FBM->BBELT converter to be happy. **************************************************************************** Everything I say is (c) 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
ln63wkp@sdcc4.ucsd.edu (Manuel Noriega) (01/13/90)
In article <2173@xyzzy.UUCP> poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com ( Poirier local) writes: >In article <5347@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> waynekn@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >< ><It doesn't matter if you have a Cray in your Amiga. The bottle-neck ><Is the CHIP RAM, and you can't go any faster than you can put inforamtion ><into the chip RAM. In the high res. 4 bit-plane mode, most of the time Yes I am aware of that, but I *HAVE* done some animation comparison between a stock Amiga and a 68030 GVP (& Hurricane 68030) machines. The animation runs significantly faster. Now these aren't your dinky 320X400 32 color with little frame changes, but a hires OVERSCAN 4 bitplanes helicopter moving through the city types (with large frame changes). ><the CHIP RAM is busy putting out the display and the processor if often ><forced to wait if it needs to update the CHIP RAM. The screen being looked ><at has to reside in the CHIP RAM so there is no way around this problem. Yes, I don't expect to see animations using copper intensive operations like displaying dynamic-HAM/Hires or SlicedHAM, but regular HAM animations (which the blackbox uses) do perform in or near realtime on accelerated machines. ><as great for Ray-Traced animation as some people think. Well the thing that makes the BlackBox look good (on paper) is that it supports animation, portable, and is CHEAP! If you look at the other frame boards out there, they don't offer RGB output and do not really have 24bits but actually 21 bits. And, you can't do realtime animations. You'd have to get a special display driver which uploads the 24 bit to the buffer. So the only way to do animation is to fork out $$$ for a frame VCR/controller. A friend of a friend of mine does this for professional work in Arizona. The HAM-E box seems to answer all of the framebuffer problems. The external KLUDGE may be it's good point since, we can just take the box to our client's machine instead of lugging ours to the studio. Nifty I must say! >pardon my ignorance, as I'm not sufficiently into the animation scene, >but this implies that the Amiga, whether stock or accelerated, can't do >a good job of regular 16-color high-res four-plane animation? This surprises >me a little, as I can't remember hearing anybody complaining about it >before now. Anyone have some sample data on high-res frame rates? Well, if you want, I can upload the 3 Meg animation.. > Cheers, > Charles Poirier -Viet Ho vho@ucsd.edu ======================================================================== "No I'm not a programmer, but I play one on TV!"
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (01/14/90)
In article <25ad0290:3739.10comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP>, tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) writes: > I am sorry for sounding naive about this , but do you mean ti imply that I > cant fill a 640x400x4 plane screen in under 1/60th of a second? If you mean by 'fill', something like clearing the screen, then maybe it can be done with the blitter, or at least one or two bit planes of the screen. Other than that there isn't much that can else that can be done. My best guess is that less than 5% of the screen could be updated from a Anim file in high res. per 1/60 of a second. This is pretty limiting when it comes to animation. > > Th NUMBER of colors in the BB box is NOT relevant in this case, since the > AMOUNt of data will be EXACTLY that as for the 640x400x4 (wich is what the > amiga see's it as). No one ever said any thing about the number of colors exect for you. I think that everyone is well aware that the amount of data is constant. Wayne Knapp
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (01/24/90)
In article <5375@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >My best >guess is that less than 5% of the screen could be updated from a Anim file >in high res. per 1/60 of a second. This is pretty limiting when it comes >to animation. > Wayne Knapp Well it's okay to guess, I guess. But surely, someone out there has a nice big 4-plane hi-res anim that could be *timed*? I'd like to see a) the size of the anim file (since frame-to-frame delta sizes are quite variable), b) the number of frames, and c) the time to cycle through the anim once, excluding loading time; for both a stock Amiga and an accelerated one (say which accelerator, obviously). Also: when doing this test, please avoid running the nifty neato background utilities (clocks, mouse utils...) that everyone must have by now; their impact could be significant. Such information would help a great deal in settling this issue. One other thing to bear in mind: Note that 2000s (and 1-meg 500's) which don't have the Fatter Agnus chip, have "pseudo-fast" RAM which is right there on the CHIP bus, and thus (I think) sees more DMA contention than true FAST ram. I've noticed that my 1000 expanded with a 1/2 Meg Alegra for FAST ram is *faster* than my friend's stock 2000, presumably for this reason. Thanks, Charles Poirier