klm@munsell.UUCP (11/19/87)
[Kent, you totally weird man from xanth, this Bud's for you too!] In article <1871@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >In article <1364@squeaker.munsell.UUCP> klm@squeaker.UUCP (Kevin [Being Weird Isn't Enough] McBride) writes: >>Higher res, yes! 16 meg colors? WHY??!! Your eye can't see that many! >>[etc. etc.] >> >>IMHO, you can get just as good display quality with 12 bits out, IF you know >>what you are doing. (i.e., you need to do a little bit more than just linear >>compression through a hardware LUT.) > >No, 4k is definately NOT ENOUGH. I don't know just how much *is* enough, >but it ain't 4096. Let me say it again. A very good facsimile display of a true color image can be obtained using only 4096 colors. Period. Mach Banding? Add random noise. Make the display wider and taller, not deeper. Use a better monitor. Like I said, if you have a clue about the human eye's psychometric color response, you can do a lot of interesting things without having to go to a brute force solution. You still really want 24 bits? Better get a blitter with a hell of a lot more bandwidth than the one we have now. >BTW, doesn't the Mimetics 24 bit 640x400 frame buffer come in at $700-$800? >If that's "quite a bit more than you paid for your Amiga", I'd like to know >where you bought your Amiga. Kim already asked me that question. I was basing my statement on the fact that 24-bit frame buffers for "serious" computers (like one that we're in the process of checking out) cost in the $5000 price range or more. Granted, we're talking higher res., but memory is cheap. I'll believe the $700-$800 price tag for the Mimetics 24 bit frame buffer when my dealer has one on his shelf. I don't think they can sell it that cheap and make a profit. Remember "economy of scale." At 640 x 400 it's still gonna have aliasing problems. I'll take 1280x1024x12 over 640x400x24 any day. If you were on the East Coast, I'd invite you to come visit me and look at the display on the Eikonix Designmaster 8000. 12 bits and very impressive. YOW! I'm having visions of HIGHER SPATIAL RESOLUTION!! -- Kevin McBride, the guy in the brace // | It's the end of the world Eikonix - A Kodak Co. // | as we know it, Billerica, MA \\ // Amiga | {encore,adelie}!munsell!klm \X/ Rules! | And I feel fine...
waterman@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article klm@atkins.UUCP (Kevin [Being Weird Isn't Enough] McBride) writes: >[Kent, you totally weird man from xanth, this Bud's for you too!] >Make the display wider and taller, not deeper. Use a better monitor. > >Like I said, if you have a clue about the human eye's psychometric color >response, you can do a lot of interesting things without having to go to >a brute force solution. > At 640 x 400 it's still gonna >have aliasing problems. I'll take 1280x1024x12 over 640x400x24 any day. I would too, but with at least an order of magnitude cost difference, I'll be very happy with that 640x400xWhatever. If you figure out what you're doing as far as spacial frequency and sampling theory go, you can get just as good as display out of the 640x400, and save yourself quite a lot of computing along the way. The anti-aliasing is cheaper than the 6 times more display points. Like you say, brute force isn't always the way to go (but it's a lot more fun, if you've got the bucks :-) >the display on the Eikonix Designmaster 8000. 12 bits and very impressive. > >YOW! I'm having visions of HIGHER SPATIAL RESOLUTION!! Is that anything like the "non-fractal resolution" pass in Joel Hagen's "Focus" ?? (for those of you who weren't there, or haven't gotten your disks from Tom yet, Joel Hagen entered some wild film loops in the BADGE Killer Demo contest.) ---TS
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/20/87)
>>but it ain't 4096. > >Let me say it again. A very good facsimile display of a true color image can >be obtained using only 4096 colors. Period. Mach Banding? Add random noise. >Make the display wider and taller, not deeper. Use a better monitor. > >Like I said, if you have a clue about the human eye's psychometric color >response, you can do a lot of interesting things without having to go to >a brute force solution. Unfortunetly, you are wrong. Mach Banding will occur even if you use a 4x4 dithering matrix WITH random based set generation. With 16 levels you will see differences in pixels no matter what you use. To get real color quality you need at least 64 levels (7 bits) per gun and a non-linear scaling. >You still really want 24 bits? Better get a blitter with a hell of a lot more >bandwidth than the one we have now. I want 24 bits, but a HAM approach would suite me just fine. >Kim already asked me that question. I was basing my statement on the fact >that 24-bit frame buffers for "serious" computers (like one that we're in >the process of checking out) cost in the $5000 price range or more. Granted, >we're talking higher res., but memory is cheap. It doesn't take super-high resolution for a computer to be 'serious'. In my opinion, the Amiga rates a 'serious' qualification for simply having a sophisticated operating system. Fast memory isn't cheap, especially when you are applying it to a relatively low-cost computer. >have aliasing problems. I'll take 1280x1024x12 over 640x400x24 any day. So would I. I use 1280x1024x8 (256 pens, 16Meg pallette) every day on Tek graphics terminals. I would like to see such an option on the A2000. An A2000 with a 68020 and a high resolution video card would beat the Mac II, but I would rather it not be made mandatory. BTW: even 256 pens isn't enough. This is where HAM would be much appreciated. -Matt
klm@munsell.UUCP (Kevin [Being Weird Isn't Enough] McBride) (11/24/87)
In article <8711201930.AA27888@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > > Unfortunetly, you are wrong. Mach Banding will occur even if you >use a 4x4 dithering matrix WITH random based set generation. With 16 levels >you will see differences in pixels no matter what you use. To get real >color quality you need at least 64 levels (7 bits) per gun and a non-linear >scaling. What? You don't agree with me? What kind of an egotistical flaming typical wombat aggie melon-humping cheese-whizzing nanosexual subuseless clamsucker are you? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) (Thanks Leo, that was brilliant. I'm going to use that phrase every day. :-) Matt, I would suggest that you try to look a little bit beyond the obvious. 12 bits doesn't necssarily mean 4 bits per gun. It means, in my case, that you have a total of 4096 colors to play with at any one time. My palette is 16 million colors. I'm firing with 8 bits per gun, I'm just severly limiting the combinations that are allowed. If I use the *correct* 4096 colors I get results that are commercially acceptable in a $500,000+ high-end publishing system. I'm starting to get a wee bit PO'd. I'm trying to point out an alternative. It's an alternative that works. We use it. I don't like the fact that people are telling me that it won't work. It does. If it doesn't work for you, it's because you're not doing it right. You people can tell me to go shit in my hat if you like, but show me some evidence to prove that what I'm doing can't be done. Or, like I already suggested, go to an electronic publishing show and check out the Eikonix Designmaster 8000. There's my proof. > It doesn't take super-high resolution for a computer to be 'serious'. Granted. VAXen are 'serious' computers, but I wouldn't call a VT100 "high res." On the other hand, we have the Atari ST... :-) -- Kevin McBride, the guy in the brace // | It's the end of the world Eikonix - A Kodak Co. // | as we know it, Billerica, MA \\ // Amiga | {encore,adelie}!munsell!klm \X/ Rules! | And I feel fine...
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (11/24/87)
In article <1405@atkins.munsell.UUCP> klm@munsell.UUCP (Kevin [Being Weird Isn't Enough] McBride) writes: >(Thanks Leo, that was brilliant. I'm going to use that phrase every day. :-) Good Lord, I hope not. It would lose its impact. >Matt, I would suggest that you try to look a little bit beyond the obvious. >12 bits doesn't necssarily mean 4 bits per gun. It means, in my case, >that you have a total of 4096 colors to play with at any one time. My > >I'm starting to get a wee bit PO'd. I'm trying to point out an >alternative. But, Kevin! You didn't SAY that you were choosing 4096 colors out of a 16M color space. In fact, your most recent postings were the first ones that said anything about 16M colors at all. Understand that we have been assuming that you were saying that a TOTAL of 4096 colors were sufficient, and that we have been saying that it isn't (just as you have just admitted). I'd KILL for a 4096 color pallette out of a 16M color space! -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/24/87)
You can currently get 32 shades of grey by using extra-halfbrite. I guess you could support 64 shades with the current 6-bitplane limit, on a monochrome monitor, by using some simple function of the RGB output, EHB and a smart selection of colors. Would this be enough? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (11/25/87)
In article <1112@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >You can currently get 32 shades of grey by using extra-halfbrite. Using what palette? I can get 8 new shades in the lower ( <8 ) intensities : 15/2 = 7.5 11/2 = 5.5 7/2 = 3.5 3/2 = 1.5 14/2 = 7 10/2 = 5 6/2 = 3 2/2 = 1 13/2 = 6.5 9/2 = 4.5 5/2 = 2.5 1/2 = .5 12/2 = 6 8/2 = 4 4/2 = 2 0/2 = 0 This makes it less than useful in this case, but you can use it to get more shades out of few colors (like 8 shades with 4 color registers 14,12,10,8 and 7,6,5,4) Has anyone besides Blair Sullivan come up with a use for EHB ? I use if for shadows in a game I am sort of half working on but that seems to be about the best use for it. --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.
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (11/26/87)
In article <34828@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <1112@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>You can currently get 32 shades of grey by using extra-halfbrite. > >Using what palette? I can get 8 new shades in the lower ( <8 ) intensities : > >15/2 = 7.5 11/2 = 5.5 7/2 = 3.5 3/2 = 1.5 >14/2 = 7 10/2 = 5 6/2 = 3 2/2 = 1 >13/2 = 6.5 9/2 = 4.5 5/2 = 2.5 1/2 = .5 >12/2 = 6 8/2 = 4 4/2 = 2 0/2 = 0 > BZZZTT!! Wrong! You don't win the car. :-) Halfbrite does not fully halve the gun intensities. It takes the intensity for each gun and right-shifts it by one bit, and the LSB falls into the bit bucket. So your table really looks like this: 15/2 = 7 11/2 = 5 7/2 = 3 3/2 = 1 14/2 = 7 10/2 = 5 6/2 = 3 2/2 = 1 13/2 = 6 9/2 = 4 5/2 = 2 1/2 = 0 12/2 = 6 8/2 = 4 4/2 = 2 0/2 = 0 Therefore, you don't get any new shades (sigh). This is from an old halfbrite tutorial that came from ALG. I'm 99.9999% sure it is still correct. Totally Unrelated Note: For those who were at BADGE when I was talking about my message port/exception problems (where I was getting multiple messages when I had in fact only sent one), I found out what was wrong. The problem was that I'm a profound moron. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy who's too ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ stupid to remember to call dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o GetMsg() on the reply port. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! Good thing, too..." -- Me