rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (07/30/88)
I got a number of good replies on the 'amiga on a mac ii budget' question.
Thanks to all of you.
--------------------------------------------------
Dave Haynie writes:
The flickerFixer will get you slightly above the Mac II's pixel resolution, if
not quite up to the number of colors you can get at once with a Mac II. The
display is just as good, sharpness-wise and all.
While we're spending as much as a Mac II, why not get as much power. There
are a number of 68020 and 68030 boards for the A2000 CPU slot. One of these
should certainly fit in that budget range. I'd certainly recommend the
Commodore-Amiga A2620 board, but that's not yet out in the US yet, so if
you were buying one today you'd probably go with CSA or Hurricane.
In the area of hard disks, you're already ahead. Any DMA driven hard disk for
the Amiga, in combination with the FastFileSystem you get with V1.3 of the
OS, is noticably faster than a Mac II's hard drive. Even slightly more so
with a 32 bit board in place.
--------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Lavitsky <gatech!andante!hector!eric@eddie.mit.edu>
Lessee - Mac II budget == $6,000+ (for a reasonable system)
So - A2000 + 2nd floppy == ~1500
Flicker Fixer == ~ 550
Monitor == ~ 600
Wow - easily a 200 Meg hard disk on top of that (~1500), a 68020 board (CBM's)
and some software. Also, you'd have to include some network card to meet what the
Mac II can do - so let's say an Ethernet card as well. I'd also recommend a
different monitor - perhaps a Sony 1302 or the new 16" PGS multiscan monitor...
Yes, you heard me right - Princeton Graphics has just released a 16" multiscan
RGB monitor that scans at the low end at 15Khz !!! (just right for the 15.75
that the Amiga needs for it's standard signal). If the quality of the picture
is anything near as good as the current 12-13" PGS monitor, it should be
fantastic. It retails for $1375 ...
--------------------------------------------------
From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@sun.com>
Well a Mac II budget (for a complete system including keyboard) is about
$10,000. I would get the following
An Amiga 2000 with an 8Meg board populated with 2Meg ($2500)
A Zenith FTM monitor and a FlickerFixer ($1000)
A Commodore 2090{a} and 100Meg Connors hard disk ($1400)
A 6 month $2500 Certificate of Deposit, so that I could get the C/A '020 board.
An HP LaserJet II laser printer with full RAM ($2000)
And that would leave me $500 to by Interceptor, StarGlider II, Empire, Bard's
Tale II, Ports of Call, Flight Simulator II, Arexx, and TxEd+.
--------------------------
X-Possible-Reply-Path: Arved@cup.portal.com
X-Possible-Reply-Path: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Arved
What do you mean by "make up for the mac ii's superior display?"
I use an Amiga 2000 with a Sony MultiScan monitor (the CDP 1302, identical
internals to the MAC ][ color monitor), and have something like 712x512 pixels
usable (through the PD program MOREROWS, which increases the display from 640x
480 up to this value.
The only "lack" of display clarity arises from the use of 2-pixel wide fonts
rather than the MACs standard 1-pixel wide font. Since the Amiga's fonts are
held in relatively simple files, and the DOS includes a font editor (as well a
a simple icon editor), you can make the Amiga fonts >>>JUST<<< as good as you
want them.
I had been working on a set of one-pixel wide fonts, but the promise of soon t
be released upgrades to the OS including postscript screen fonts has let
procrastination take it's course.
The only reason I could see to get a MAC ][ is compatibility with some MA
software (if you have any, this may be a concern), and the availability of UNI
on the MAC ][. Commodore has promised UNIX, but is realistically at least a
year away.
--------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Ashdown <sp7040!jose!pedro!slack!pete@sun.com>
"What I Would Get" - By Pete Ashdown
Amiga 2000 - $1400
Flicker Fixer - $500
Sony Multisync Monitor - $600
NewTek's Video Toaster (Genlock, Frame Buffer, Frame Capture, Digital Effects
and a whole lot more) - $800
SCSI Interface - $150
300 Meg Internal SCSI Hard Drive - $2000
Removable 40 Meg Cartridge Hard Drive - $1200
Which comes to roughly $6650. Roughly the price of a Mac II system with an
80 meg hard drive, Apple's monitor, and NOTHING ELSE. I suppose you could
mix and match the 40 meg cartridge drive with memory expansions. I'd
probably take the board by Microbotics that allows you to use up to 8 Megs
of SIMM chips.
Beyond that, you aren't taking the cost of Amiga software vs. the cost of
Mac II software. For example:
Photon Paint Amiga - $70.00 Photon Paint Mac II - $300.00
Don't ask me why the Mac's software is so overpriced. I've heard (and read)
rumors that Apple demands that manufacturers charge bloated prices for their
products (I don't think that is the _exact_ words of Apple though). I mean,
look at the cost of the //GS vs. an Amiga 500. Then look at what you are
getting in comparison.
--------------------------------------------------
The point is clear: You can get a better machine than the MAC II for
a LOT less money. Thanks to all who wrote.
ronwayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (08/01/88)
In article <575@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes: > > I got a number of good replies on the 'amiga on a mac ii budget' question. > Thanks to all of you. > -------------------------------------------------- . . All kinds of interesting solutions (deleted . . > -------------------------------------------------- > > The point is clear: You can get a better machine than the MAC II for > a LOT less money. Thanks to all who wrote. > ron Sorry but you guys are missing the whole issue. Of coarse you can beef up a 2000 to almost a Mac II level. (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet which is a key feature in my mind). Anyway the problem is once you beef up the Amiga to a Mac II level, there is little else you can do. The Mac II starts at the high level. You still have open slots. Lots of vendors are making all kinds of cards to plug into the Mac II. At least 10 for every 1 in the Amiga market. So if you want a Mac II level machine you are much likely to be better off buying a Mac II instead of a maxed out Amiga 2000. So the real point is where is the Amiga 4000? Why isn't there one if CBM wants to go against Apple. My 1000 is getting pretty wimpy these days. Am I going to have to buy a Mac II, or PS/2 to get the power I want, the graphics I want, the options I want? You guys have great ideas for Amiga 2000 systems, problem is I want a Mac II or better system, I don't want a huge pile of hardware trying to be a Mac II or better system. So where is the Amiga 4000? Wayne Knapp
koster@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Herbert West) (08/01/88)
>Entire stuff deleted, complaining about the AMIGA
I'm getting sick of people bad-mouthing the AMIGA. Like saying the A1000
is getting pretty wimpy.
Shove it! The AMIGA is the BEST machine in the history of the world for
the price. The MAC II is an overpriced joke.
There is nothing at all wimpy about the Amiga. Compare it to a MacIntosh or
a Commodore 64 or an atari ST or an IBM pc. It beats them all hands down.
Give us honest AMIGA-loving owners a break and send your whining to
/dev/null.dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) (08/02/88)
In article <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > In article <575@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes: > > > > I got a number of good replies on the 'amiga on a mac ii budget' question. > > Thanks to all of you. > > Sorry but you guys are missing the whole issue. Of coarse you can beef up > a 2000 to almost a Mac II level. (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet > which is a key feature in my mind). Anyway the problem is once you beef > up the Amiga to a Mac II level, there is little else you can do. > > The Mac II starts at the high level. You still have open slots. Lots of > vendors are making all kinds of cards to plug into the Mac II. At least > 10 for every 1 in the Amiga market. > > So if you want a Mac II level machine you are much likely to be better off > buying a Mac II instead of a maxed out Amiga 2000. So the real point is > where is the Amiga 4000? Why isn't there one if CBM wants to go against > Apple. My 1000 is getting pretty wimpy these days. Am I going to have > to buy a Mac II, or PS/2 to get the power I want, the graphics I want, > the options I want? > > You guys have great ideas for Amiga 2000 systems, problem is I want a Mac II > or better system, I don't want a huge pile of hardware trying to be a > Mac II or better system. So where is the Amiga 4000? > > Wayne Knapp Personally, I don't see it. In this country, Commodore isn't a high end machine company. Even so, the 2000 is extensible to MAC II like performance with add in cards. As long as the price is comparable who cares wether it is an add in card or on the motherboard. I ask you, what Mac add in do I want that I couldn't put in an expanded Amiga. Yes the Amiga graphics aren't up to the MAC II standard and unless Commodore really wants to enter the high-end market-place with a machine priced out of the range of most people it won't happen because the memory is currently out of shlitz in the current graphics modes (though they could add more colors in low-res). A 32-bit Amiga could fix this but would require significant work in the graphics chipset and a new machine. Is there enough demand to make it worthwhile to market such a machine? I doubt it. Yes, the MAC II is a powerful, expandable, expensive machine. But, and it's a big but, it is at a distinct disadvantage in some arenas to an expanded Amiga. Believe it or not the thing that will eat you alive on a Mac II is not the hardware but the software. The monochrome software is reasonably priced because like an expanded Amiga it is borrowing it from a lower-cost machine marketplace (Mac 512, Plus, SE, etc.). The color software is a different story, for the cost of a single paint program that isn't THAT much better than a single paint program for the Amiga you could buy practically every paint program available for the Amiga. An expanded Amiga has the large advantage that its color software is subsidized by all those unexpanded machines out there and as such is priced commensurately. Until a lower cost Mac II or a color SE comes out and get circulated in the market you will pay through the nose for Mac II color software. To a lesser degree, the same things are probably true of Mac II specific hardware add-ons. It sounds like to me, you really do want a Mac II. I'm more interested in expanding my 2000. The funny thing is the Mac II isn't exciting. Oh, it's got a glorious display and runs fast enough (so long as you aren't using the color modes) but excitement is usually generated by software intended for multi-thousands of people not for businesses and the few people that can afford a 5k plus machine. David Albrecht
rminnich@lois.super.org (Ronald G Minnich) (08/02/88)
In article <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >Sorry but you guys are missing the whole issue. Of coarse you can beef up >a 2000 to almost a Mac II level. (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet >which is a key feature in my mind). Anyway the problem is once you beef >up the Amiga to a Mac II level, there is little else you can do. I don't think you got my drift; maybe i did not make it clear. The point is that a lot of people compare a stock amiga 2000 to a mac ii and conclude the mac ii is better (see recent comp.arch postings). My argument is that you must at least compare a same-price 2000 to a mac ii. For my money, you do a lot better. I don't buy your 'little else you can do' argument anyway. I see two things the mac ii does better: 256 color pallette and Hypercard. I recently used a machine with 256-color pallette and X windows. You move from window to window, the pallette changes. You wanna go insane? try it sometime. That machine badly needed amiga-like screens. When the mac starts doing lotsa windows and multitasking, it will need screens too. Just wait. Also: Mac ii windows are pigs speed-wise, hypercard is proprietary (and therefore useless), and mac ii multitasking is UGLY. I think in the long run NeWS has hypercard beat, but that is another subject. >The Mac II starts at the high level. You still have open slots. Lots of >vendors are making all kinds of cards to plug into the Mac II. At least >10 for every 1 in the Amiga market. OK. I showed 68020/68881+8mb+130mb disk + enet card. You get NFS that works on the amiga with any NFS host. for mac ii you need tops. yuck. What more did you want? >So if you want a Mac II level machine you are much likely to be better off >buying a Mac II instead of a maxed out Amiga 2000. Well, not true, i think. If you want a mac ii level machine, and not specifically a mac ii, get an amiga 2000, then spend the money you save on a laser printer or something. If you want a mac ii, buy a mac ii, that is ok. If you want a nice machine, buy an amiga 2000. ron
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (08/02/88)
In article <4793@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, koster@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Herbert West) writes: > I'm getting sick of people bad-mouthing the AMIGA. Like saying the A1000 > is getting pretty wimpy. Actually every computer I've ever own or worked on becomes wimpy with time. When I write a program, I want to be able to sell it to a large amount of people as possible. If it only runs on some super suped up version of some machine, like say an Amiga 2000 upgraded to a psudo Mac II, then not enough people will be able to run the code to make it worth my while. Slots are great, but what about stock performance. Since the Amiga 2000 is just the 1000 with slots for the most part it isn't a huge improvement. So I'm waiting for something like an Amiga 4000. > Shove it! The AMIGA is the BEST machine in the history of the world for > the price. The MAC II is an overpriced joke. Maybe, maybe not. Really depends of what you mean. If your talking about machines that start a cult following maybe you've got a point. :-) :-) Maybe the programing just was a little too weak, as I was the first kid on my block with an Amiga. :-) In truth though, Apple seem to being doing great with thier overpriced joke. Maybe a super overpriced 88000 based Amiga 4000 could become the number one selling machine. When it comes to prices there often seems to be little logic. Besides if most people REALLY want something they can find the money. True Apple stuff is really overpriced, but a lot of people want it. (Like my wife, but that is another story) > There is nothing at all wimpy about the Amiga. Compare it to a MacIntosh or > a Commodore 64 or an atari ST or an IBM pc. It beats them all hands down. Nothing to say here, since I don't have any formal religious training. :-) > Give us honest AMIGA-loving owners a break and send your whining to > /dev/null. I'm not whinning, just hoping to get my point driven home to the Amiga people at CBM. I want a much more powerful stock Amiga, not a kulge. I also do think I'm a honest Amiga owner. I buy Amiga software, I use Amiga software, I've even written a little. But you are right, I'll juck my Amiga before my wife, so I guess I'm not a Amiga cultist. :-) Such is life, Wayne Knapp P.S. The wonderful thing about the net is it really allows freedom of expression, that is also the worst thing about it.
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) (08/03/88)
In article <4793@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> koster@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Herbert West) writes: >>Entire stuff deleted, complaining about the AMIGA > > >I'm getting sick of people bad-mouthing the AMIGA. Like saying the A1000 >is getting pretty wimpy. > > [Some comments about the Amiga being the best machine, and not wimpy] > >Give us honest AMIGA-loving owners a break and send your whining to >/dev/null. I would like to add another observation. After reading this news group for almost two years, it seems there have been a lot of people telling Commodore what the Amiga *should* be: their dream machine. Come on! Everyone of us has a different "perfect computer," and expecting Commodore to come up with a machine that meets most of everyone's specifications is ridiculous. Sure, there are certainly deviances in Commodore's machines from my all-time-super-whammy-computer, but I do not expect them to change it. I think they have done a great job already. #define SARCASM_MODE_ON In my opinion, I think that Commodore's next computer should be based on a hypercube architecture; have the speed of a Cray (yet it shouldn't require plasma for coolant); have 23 gigabytes of available ram (that can be expanded to 256 terabytes); have removable-media drives with 1 million terabytes of read/write storage; have a multi-tasking OS with all of the power of UNIX, VMS, OS/[360,2], MULTICS, [and any other obscure OS you can think of], and with embedded "AI techniques" to do processing on the command-line and figure out what you *really* wanted to type as well as have a complete expert system in it to diagnose problems that you make; have sound chips that surpass current high-end Kurzweils and FairLights as well as speech recognition, all in octaphonic sound; and have graphics with better pixel resolution than 70mm motion-picture film using 32 bit-planes (4294967295 colors) out of a palette of 1 google possible colors, all being displayed on a 1-meter diagonal, 32768 x 32768 pixel color monitor. Oh yeah, and the basic system should be all of the above (with only one drive, to cut down costs) and be available for under $200. I sincerely think that if CBM can get this out in under a year, that you will probably blow the Macintosh and IBM markets to kingdom come! (And for anyone who has not yet figured out that this paragraph is a big joke, ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) #undefine SARCASM_MODE_ON Keep up the good work Commodore. I have yet to find a better machine for my purposes...and that will be hard, because my a1000 fits most of my needs already. -Chris -- Christopher Lishka ...!{rutgers|ucbvax|...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene lishka%uwslh.uucp@cs.wisc.edu Immunology Section (608)262-1617 lishka@uwslh.uucp ---- "...Just because someone is shy and gets straight A's does not mean they won't put wads of gum in your arm pits." - Lynda Barry, "Ernie Pook's Commeek: Gum of Mystery"
cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) (08/03/88)
In article <179@kesmai.COM> dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) writes: >In article <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >> In article <575@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes: >> Sorry but you guys are missing the whole issue. Of coarse you can beef up >> a 2000 to almost a Mac II level. We're comparing Apples (no pun intended :-) to Oranges here, there are some features the Mac has that the Amiga doesn't and vice-versa. But the fact that the Amiga *is* comparable to the Mac II, at 3x the price, is pretty nice. >> (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet which is a key feature in my >> mind) Really? People keep talking about this, but I just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for bragging purposes. I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more. Actually, I'm kind of curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097 bars on it? Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!? >> Anyway the problem is once you beef >> up the Amiga to a Mac II level, there is little else you can do. >> The Mac II starts at the high level. There is little that you can do, except for adding the same stuff you'd add on a Mac II... And since these "high level" things are included by the manufacturer, you have to contend with any mistakes they made -- for example, the Mac II's 68881 is useless -- the interface makes it quite often slower than doing the math on the processor! >> You still have open slots [on the Mac II]. You'll still have open slots on a 2000, for both Amiga and PC boards... >> buying a Mac II instead of a maxed out Amiga 2000. Maxed out? Not likely... >>So the real point is where is the Amiga 4000? How about the 2500? It gives you UNIX, an MMU, a 68020 -- the few things the Mac has which I think are really worthwhile! With X, the super hi-res monochrome monitor and an ethernet setup it beats the pants off of a Mac II in the workstation market... It's not out here yet, but they've got them in Europe, so it's only a matter of time. So I'd say the bottom line is that real reason to want a Mac ][ is the software. It makes Mac software fast enough to be palatable, and there's something to be said for that. I'd give a lot to have Microsoft Word or Adobe Illustrator on the Amiga, but then again, I'd much rather have a $7000 Amiga... In any case, this discussion is tending more and more towards religion, so I motion we adjourn... -- Jim
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/03/88)
Funny, I was just saying to Harv and Keith: ``Harv and Keith, have
you noticed that nobody has been comparing Mac's to amigas or ST's
or discussed piracy or copy protection or dongles.''
Well, fully believing that the entire USENET would collapse
into a wretched shambles without upholding certain tradtions, so here
goes my entry into this fray:
The Mac ][ still can't animate worth a pint of sour owl shit.
--
AI is a shell game.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richardcmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/03/88)
Thank you everybody for contributing your opinions and insights into this
discussion. Now, let's move on to more interesting issues.
Thank you,
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (08/04/88)
In article <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes: > >> (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet which is a key > feature in my >> mind) Really? People keep talking about this, but I > just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for > bragging purposes. I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be > nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more. Actually, I'm kind of > curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097 > bars on it? Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and > an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!? > If you are doing bar charts, still pictures and such HAM is okay. If you want to do 3D animation HAM is much harder and more limited than having a larger number of bit planes. HAM is interesting, but isn't a general solution for the worlds graphics needs. Take a look at the Targa board for the PC. 15 bit planes 512x480 display. Comparing its display to HAM is like comparing a zerox copy of a color picture to the color picture. These types of displays can be done now for less than $500. Surely something better than HAM could be done on the Amiga now for less. The A500 does include a lot of bang for the buck, true not on the cutting edge, but a very reasonable machine. However I'm not so impressed with the B2000, because for the same about of money you can get a 286 machine with VGA graphics which aren't bad. (Even though I rather have a 68000 than a 286) Graphics are a real tender spot with me since I work at Tektronix. In fact Tek's lead in the Graphics market was what drew me here in the first place. 10 years ago, if you had anything to do with graphics at all it was likely you would use Tek gear. Now? Tek hasn't kept up, and for the most part Tek graphics are a minor player in the computer graphics market. If CBM doesn't push the graphics a little, after all it is the Amiga's main claim to fame, the rest of the world will march on by just like it has with Tek. I think it is more fun to be with a leader than a follower. So the problem is the Amiga is quickly falling out of the lead. Without considering cost, (which always is going down in the long run) Apple and IBM are taking the lead. When the Amiga first came out I was one of the first to put my money down. The first Amiga showed amazing graphics at that time for that amount of money. Now things seem to be changing. The Amiga seems to be starting to get a hold of the video market, so if it is improved maybe just maybe it could really grab ahold of the market. Rumors about new chip sets isn't enough. When I first saw the Amiga it was the programs running that sold me, not the stories about it. Hope this clearifies what my position is. I'm not agaisnt the Amiga, I want to see it to continue to improve and grow. It has great potential, but the potential will decease the long it is left on the shelf. Sincerely, Wayne Knapp
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (08/04/88)
In article <5125@gryphon.CTS.COM>, richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > The Mac ][ still can't animate worth a pint of sour owl shit. > Why?
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (08/04/88)
In article <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes: >Really? People keep talking about this, but I >just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for >bragging purposes. I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be >nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more. Actually, I'm kind of >curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097 >bars on it? Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and >an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!? Yes. Try this sometime, if you own a ray tracing package. Make a large red slab, and place it at an angle to your field of view, with a light shining down on it. --------------------------------- / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ +--------------------------------------------+ | | +--------------------------------------------+ You will see distinctive bands of color across the slab as you go further away from the light. The reason is that in HAM mode, you only have 15 shades of red to work with, and you _can_ see the difference between them. On a MAC II, you have, what, 256 shades of red to work with? (not sure about that, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/04/88)
In article <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes: >In article <179@kesmai.COM> dca@kesmai.COM (David C. Albrecht) writes: >>> (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet which is a key >feature in my >> mind) Really? People keep talking about this, but I >just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for >bragging purposes. I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be >nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more. Actually, I'm kind of >curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097 >bars on it? >Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and >an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!? Yes. HAM doesnt work in HI-RES. 16 shades of a colour is too course. Look at TV. Until we can duplicate the fancy screens and logos with accurate colour representation and no artifacting, C= aint done. And yes, I'd kill to get a copy of Adobe illustrator for the Amiga. Right now it loks like the only way is to get a 2000 and run it on the PC side. Sick. This has to be my ``if there was ONE software package you would like to see for the amiga'' winner. It's a very important piece of software. C'mon C=, convince Adobe to do it. There is no way in hell they are gonna let go of that product. -- AI is a shell game. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (08/27/88)
In article <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes: >Really? People keep talking about this, but I >just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for >bragging purposes. I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be >nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more. Actually, I'm kind of >curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097 >bars on it? Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and >an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!? It's generally accepted in the computer graphics community that if you want accurate display of "photographic-looking" images (which includes both photographs of real objects and high-quality calculated images), without artifacts like visible bands across areas that should be smoothly shaded, you should have 24 bits of colour, not 8 or 6. And 24 bits works so well partly because the light output of a CRT is roughly an exponential function of the input voltage, effectively giving an 8-bit linear digital-to-analog converter extra resolution in the dark areas, where it needs it, and less in bright areas, where it doesn't. If you're working with a signal that doesn't have this non-linearity working for it, for example a camera, you really need more than 8 bits per colour. 12 seems sufficient, 8 is definitely not. What does all this have to do with an Amiga? Well, there really are people with a need for 24 bits or even more per pixel. There are 24 bit/pixel graphics cards available for the IBM PC market, complete with genlock and frame-grabbing capability. They're starting to show up for the Mac II as well. This will make the machines expensive, but if you need a 24-bit workstation then you need it, and the Amiga is simply out of that market if it can't provide the colour resolution. (Where I work, the workstations are all 24 bits/pixel, and the input scanner and film recorder are 36 bits/pixel). Dave Martindale