MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (Marcelino Bernardo) (01/08/90)
In article <90006.120601JKT100@PSUVM.BITNET>, Kurt Tappe psuvm!jkt100@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu writes: >In article <678@alias.UUCP>, rhardock@alias.UUCP (Ron Hardock) writes: >> - Mac II (provides 16 million simultaneous colors). >Whoa there. Yes, the Mac II has a 16 million color palette, but the >output only handles 256 colors simultaneously, not all 16 million. ^^^ You're dead wrong on this one. The Mac II series does provide for 16.7 million colors. Whether you get it or not depends on the video display board installed on the Nubus. In front of me is an ad from Radius for their DirectColor/24 which can simultaneously access every one of the Mac's 16.7 million colors. They also make a 16-bit board (32,768 colors simul- taneously) and 8-bit board. >Yes, you may be able to expand this capability, but it will cost you >a LOT. Heck, the basic Mac II will cost you a lot too, so you may >not have the $$ available to expand to the kind of colors you want. > > Kurt -- What do you expect to pay for such capabilities? Peanuts? But, seriously, there is so much competition among third party suppliers that the prices for these boards are bound to come down significantly. These boards are not expansions, but rather alternatives to Apple's color display. They do not need an Apple video display board to work, but the nice thing is that they could work together. Mac OS provides for that. Regards, Marcelino Bernardo mbernar@erenj.bitnet
davidli@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Paschall-Zimbel) (01/10/90)
In article <9001091511.AA13450@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (Marcelino Bernardo) writes: >You're dead wrong on this one. The Mac II series does provide for 16.7 >million colors. Whether you get it or not depends on the video display >board installed on the Nubus. In front of me is an ad from Radius for >their DirectColor/24 which can simultaneously access every one of the Mac's >16.7 million colors. They also make a 16-bit board (32,768 colors simul- >taneously) and 8-bit board. Now let's see, what sort of video display unit do we need? 16 million colors displayed simultaneously would imply 16 million pixels, or a resolution of 16000 x 1000 pixels, or 8000 x 2000 pixels, or 4000 x 4000 pixels. Considering that such video display units do not appear to exist in the real world today (if you _do_ know of one, by all means give the address of the vendor -- and the price!), I highly doubt that there is a display which can show all 16 million colors "simultaneously". As an aside, consider that each pixel requires 24 bits (or 3 bytes). The DISPLAY MEMORY alone would be 48 megabytes in order to display 16 million colors "simultaneously". What can we therefore conclude? Although 24-bit Color is possible on a Macintosh, using non-Apple hardware, there are no Macintosh computers which can currently display 16 million colors on screen simultaneously. The standard operating system limit is 256 (ie. buy Apple monitor and RAM card). In order to be able to display 16 million colors on screen at the same time would require investment in 48 megabytes of memory (at $100 / meg this is about $5000), AND use of a video display with a minimal resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels. I expect that the display would cost more than the memory (by a long shot). -- David Paschall-Zimbel On second thought, the display device probably does exist -- given all of the wondrous CAD/CAM systems which one can purchase ... but then why bother with a Macintosh when the 'real thing' probably doesn't cost much more?
exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) (01/11/90)
In article <9001091511.AA13450@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (Marcelino Bernardo) writes: >You're dead wrong on this one. The Mac II series does provide for 16.7 >million colors. Whether you get it or not depends on the video display >board installed on the Nubus. In front of me is an ad from Radius for >their DirectColor/24 which can simultaneously access every one of the Mac's >16.7 million colors. They also make a 16-bit board (32,768 colors simul- Do they also make a 4096x4096 pixel screen, so that you can get all 16.7 million colors out into the world at once? -- Paul Smee, Univ of Bristol Comp Centre, Bristol BS8 1TW, Tel +44 272 303132 Smee@bristol.ac.uk :-) (..!uunet!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes if you MUST)
dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu (Dave Newton the Late) (01/13/90)
This is getting really old really fast. The point is not that you _will_ display all 16 million colors, but that the graphics memory is set up such so you _can_ without having to resort to horizontal refresh pallette changes. -- David L. Newton | uunet!marque!carroll1!dnewton | The Raging Apostle-- (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | for the future-- (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha WI 53186 | for the world. "Isn't it fun to take two unrelated sentences and mix the batter lightly?" -me
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (01/19/90)
In article <18107@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> davidli@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Paschall-Zimbel) writes: > Now let's see, what sort of video display unit do we need? 16 million colors > displayed simultaneously would imply 16 million pixels, or a resolution of > 16000 x 1000 pixels, or 8000 x 2000 pixels, or 4000 x 4000 pixels. This is a stupid line of reasoning. The purpose of a graphics system that can display 16 million colors is so that you can display full color images without having to resort to dithering, custom color tables, etc. One doesn't need to show all 16 million colors at the same time, as long as you can make each pixel on the screen any color you want. Also, you can get graphics cards that provide 16 million colors on a 640x480 screen for about $800-900. So a 24-bit color Mac II can be had of a reasonable price.