anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) (04/24/87)
NB This is a second attempt at posting news and is the first real attempt at generating outgoing news from this site! The new IBM PC2 range was described in the Guardian computer pages on 9/4/87. Based on this information and other background info the PC2 graphics will be substantially better than the Amiga. They will also be substantially more expensive! All models use the Inmos IMSG171 colour lookup table, this has 256 entries and 6 bit DACs per colour giving 18 bits or 256K possible colours. Recent press announced a multi million pound order for these between IBM and Inmos. This supports 8 bits per pixel or 8 bitplanes. The low end PC2's seem to have a gate array that generates video timing to give noninterlaced 640 by 480 at 70 Hz refresh. Due to memory limitations this resolution is at most 4 bits per pixel. At 320 by 240 a full 8 bits per pixel can be generated. The memory is encoded as packed pixels in bytes rather than multiple bitplanes. All drawing is done in software. Summary vs Amiga: better to look at (no flicker, more colours) but much slower. The high end PC2's have a plug in card with 1 Meg of video ram and use the intel 82786 graphics chip. These machines are 80286 and 80386 based. I am using the Intel 82786 on a 68010 based prototype machine at the moment (together with Inmos G170) and it is very fast. It supports windowing in hardware with different windows having different bits per pixel including zero (zero BPP = 1 colour, takes no ram). This is done by fetching data for the video shift register from all over the place on the fly. It also has a drawing processor that includes a BITBLT (2.5 MPixels/s) fill area (30 Mpixels/s) lines, polylines and circles (2 MPixels/s) and CHARBLT at 20000 characters/s (given an ascii string and a font up to 16*16 pixels per char defined per character to give proportional spacing and kerning in hardware). The drawing processor is given a program to execute of graphics instructions which can be any size with unconditional jumps and subroutine call/return embedded. The CPU is told when the drawing processor has finished. All this is faster than the Amiga but the price for hires monitor + extra graphics RAM card will be about $2000. For those who want a 68010 (8MHz) + 82786 + G170 + (512K or 2Meg) + floppies + SCSI winchester + parallel & serial ports + Inmos C012 transputer link adapter that runs Tripos or OS/9 the Micro Concepts Image-10 is available. The Tripos is NOT from Metacomco, it is a much improved Cambridge University version. The hardware is available, Tripos and OS/9 are up and running but the Tripos 82786 windowing graphics drivers are not finished yet. 82786 configured for 768 by 576 50Hz interlaced PAL compatible timings. Cost is about 2000 pounds for twin floppy (720K each) or 2800 pounds for 20Mb winny+floppy (512K RAM). This doesnt include a monitor or software. A cheap (500 pounds) genlocking frame grabber will be ready soon. Contact Micro Concepts 2 St Stephens Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England. (0242) 510525. I spend my spare (!) time working on the Tripos graphics software for this machine and it has no involvement with Cambridge Consultants Ltd.
hutch@sdcsvax.UUCP (04/29/87)
<Just the facts maam.> In article <500@titan.camcon.co.uk> anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) writes: >All models use the Inmos IMSG171 colour lookup table, this has 256 >entries and 6 bit DACs per colour giving 18 bits or 256K possible >colours. Yes, I like it. Still, is 256 choices of 18 bits better than 256000 choices of 12 bits (640x480 resolution)? >The low end PC2's seem to have a gate array that generates video >timing to give noninterlaced 640 by 480 at 70 Hz refresh. Due to >memory limitations this resolution is at most 4 bits per pixel. At >320 by 240 a full 8 bits per pixel can be generated. The memory is >encoded as packed pixels in bytes rather than multiple bitplanes. >All drawing is done in software. Summary vs Amiga: better to look >at (no flicker, more colours) but much slower. Correction, *fewer* colors & no flicker. Why 70 Hz, 65 would be very stable, and they could use the rest of the bandwidth for something useful like blitting. The plug in frame buffer does sounds very nice though... I still lust after the Amiga 2000 with the 68020/68881 co-processor, and a darker side likes the 8088 and its PC slave slots. -- Jim Hutchison UUCP: {dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!hutch ARPA: Hutch@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu Disklame'r: One greater than the greatest signature representable with 184 symbols.
page@ulowell.UUCP (04/29/87)
anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) wrote in article <500@titan.camcon.co.uk>: >Summary vs Amiga: better to look at (no flicker, more colours) >but much slower. ...and more expensive. How easy is it to upgrade the low-end PS/2's to take advantage of faster video processors, or better (you define it) video? Can I get NTSC/PAL/SECAM output cheaply? How about chromakey, genlock or other neat effects? It seems that for generating stills/slides or using the machine as a color terminal, the PS/2 wins over the Amiga, if you forget about the price difference. I can't imagine doing animation, imageing, or video production work on a PS/2. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (04/30/87)
In article <3062@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> hutch@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Jim Hutchison) writes: > >Correction, *fewer* colors & no flicker. Why 70 Hz, 65 would be very >stable, and they could use the rest of the bandwidth for something useful >like blitting. Uh, they use shift-register "video" rams which means bandwidth is not a real issue. This is pretty easy on the simplistic display model that IBM implements. > >I still lust after the Amiga 2000 with the 68020/68881 co-processor, >and a darker side likes the 8088 and its PC slave slots. These sound like healthy impulses to me. 8-) -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (05/03/87)
In article <3073@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> hutch@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Jim Hutchison) writes: >In article <1794@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes (<) > >< Uh, they use shift-register "video" rams which means bandwidth is >< not a real issue. This is pretty easy on the simplistic display >< model that IBM implements. > >You can still do processing on the contents of the shift-register. Not >permanent block transfers, more like inserted block transfers. Just insert >the little devil into the output stream. Is this a silly way to handle such >things? Sounds like a fine way to do live video overlay, but I could be >quite confused. Oops, I should have less cryptic. What I meant by "simplistic" is that the IBM displays have a small chunk of display memory, which is mapped in a pretty much one-for-one way to the display. This is easy to do with video rams. The Amiga, on the other hand, can display a fairly random assortment of bitplanes and sprites from arbitrary regions in display memory. This is not so easy to do with video rams. For the uninitated, video or "shift-register" DRAMs have both the normal processor interface and an extra high-speed serial data path. The two accesses only conflict when a new page of data needs to be transfered to the serial output section. This is obviously a considerable improvment over having the display and the processor try to share the same data path. The tradeoff with respect to the Amiga is that, unless you want to make things a lot more complicated than otherwise neccessary, bitplanes would need to be aligned to conform with the underlying hardware. Also, horizontal scrolling becomes less pleasant. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
hutch@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Jim Hutchison) (05/04/87)
In article <1794@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes (<) In article <3062@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> I (Jim Hutchison) wrote (>): >[On the PC2 displaying at 70Hz] Why 70 Hz, 65 would be very >stable, and they could use the rest of the bandwidth for something useful >like blitting. < Uh, they use shift-register "video" rams which means bandwidth is < not a real issue. This is pretty easy on the simplistic display < model that IBM implements. You can still do processing on the contents of the shift-register. Not permanent block transfers, more like inserted block transfers. Just insert the little devil into the output stream. Is this a silly way to handle such things? Sounds like a fine way to do live video overlay, but I could be quite confused. -- Jim Hutchison UUCP: {dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!hutch ARPA: Hutch@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu Disklame'r: One greater than the greatest signature representable with 184 symbols.
geoffs@gssc.UUCP (Geoff Shapiro) (05/04/87)
In article <500@titan.camcon.co.uk> anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) writes: >The high end PC2's have a plug in card with 1 Meg of video ram and >use the intel 82786 graphics chip. These machines are 80286 and >80386 based. Are you talking about IBM's 1024x768x8 high resolution card ? If IBM is using an 82786 on this card it is news to me! Last I heard, the silicon on the board was custom-made at IBM's facility in Hursley, England. Please tell me where you heard this tidbit of information... Geoff Shapiro Graphic Software Systems Beaverton, Or. (503) 641-2200
anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) (05/11/87)
>>The high end PC2's have a plug in card with 1 Meg of video ram and >>use the intel 82786 graphics chip. These machines are 80286 and >>80386 based. > > Are you talking about IBM's 1024x768x8 high resolution card ? ... > > Geoff Shapiro No, I think there must be 3 levels of graphics on the PC2, 1) gate array with video RAMs 640*480 but not enough RAM for 8 bpp at this resolution. 2) 82786 based 640*480*8 bpp same display with enough RAM and 82786 for hardware windows & bitblt/line drawing. This may be mixed VRAM and page mode DRAM. 3) something else giving 1024*768*8 bpp. This won't be an 82786 since the pixel clock on the 82786 has a max of 25 MHz. Is 2) an 82786? Well the 82786 documentation goes on and on about 640*480*8 resolution and lists lots of IBM PC style software companies doing things for it (e.g. DR GEM-786). I have heard that a UK company is doing the IBM presentation manager software for the 82786 and I asked a technical support guy from a UK Intel distributor and he said that it was definitely in there somewhere but that he was not sure what was in what! Maybe someone has a hardware spec of the whole range and can settle this. All the press so far is on the low end machines and the 82786 is only just into production so I suspect that the software drivers aren't ready and it will come along later. I have just noticed that I said the PC2 plug in will have 1 Meg video RAM, I meant graphics RAM since the 82786 only does hardware windowing if used with page mode DRAMs (but it can support VRAMS as well). I will restrict further discussion of the 82786 to comp.graphics but it might be fun to put a PC 82786 plug-in into an A2000.... :-) -- ---- Adrian Cockcroft anc@uk.co.camcon (0223) 358855 ---- Cambridge Consultants Ltd, Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4DW, England
shardy@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Steve Hardy) (05/13/87)
It is IBM Hursley (in Britain) who developed the high-end 8514 (1028x768x8) display and adapter. Hursley does a lot of IBM's graphics development work. I think that the 8514 is completely IBM, i.e. no Intel 82786. The 8514 has hardware support for BITBLT. line drawing, area fill, patterns, color mixing, and scissoring. Also has soft fonts. -- Steve Hardy, SHARDY@TEKNOWLEDGE.ARPA
mike@wsucshp.UUCP (Mike Kibler - CSB2056) (05/20/87)
/ wsucshp:comp.graphics / anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) / 10:38 am May 11, 1987 / IBM has gone to their own proprietary gate array chip with the introduction of their Video Graphics Array (VGA) - standard on all PS/2 systems (Built into mother board). The output of the VGA is analog RGB. Sixteen colors may be displayed at a resolution of 640 X 480. 256 may be displayed at a resolution of 320 by 200. The palette is 256,000. IBM has also announced two proprietary graphics coprocessors, the 8514 and the 8514/A. The 8514/A with optional memory will be capable of displaying 1024 X 768 X 8. It will be interesting to see some comparisons between the PS/2 with the 8514A graphics coprocessor and Quadrams QuadHPG Series I (Intel 82786 based) graphics card which also displays 256 colors but at 640 X 480. Although Quadram has promised higher resolutions in their HPG Series II and III cards due out later this year/next year. Besides resolution is only half the story. I am interested in bit planes. I am still looking for a commitment from ATT and Number 9 (or anybody else for that matter) to produce one of their 32 bit plane graphics cards for the PS/2 system, or better yet the MAC II. ---- Mike ( Those who can do, do. Those who can't simulate! ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael K. Kibler CSNET: mike@cs1.wsu.edu Computer Science Dept. UUCP: ..!ucbvax!ucdavis!egg-id!ui3!wsucshp!mike Washington State Univ. BITNET: kibler@wsuvm1.BITNET Pullman, WA. 99164-1210 PHONE: 509-335-2723 or 509-335-6636
ali@rocky.UUCP (05/23/87)
In article <80002@wsucshp.UUCP> Mike Kibler writes: >Besides resolution is only half the story. I am interested in >bit planes. Considering the hardware to push many bit planes around in real time is still pretty expensive, I think Amiga's method of providing 4096 colors at once without the use of 12 bit planes is pretty clever. (This is known as the "Hold-and-Modify" (HAM) mode, it was described in detail a while back on this newsgroup.) The current Amigas have 32 color registers, and can display 32 colors in lo res (upto 352x474) or 16 in hi (upto 704x474). This combination of resolution/colors is fine for text applications, cartoon-like animation, business graphics, or genlock applications (where you merge video signals with titles or other images and record on VCR), but, as I've found out, if you really want to digitize an object and have it look right you need more colors. (Dithering helps, but only to a certain degree...) That's where the Amiga's HAM mode comes in real handy --- Images digitized in this mode look exceptionally real. It requires some extra computation (< 30 seconds with the "Digi-View" digitizer I have) to compute (not display, displaying is fast) a 12-bit image to look well in HAM mode, but, the results are worth it and are usually indistinguishable from real (ie, 12-bit plane) images. Only images with many sharp edges of many different colors won't come out right, due to the HAM tradeoffs. (You'll get "fuzzy" edges because of the fringing effects.) Anyway, the point is that I like the idea of more bit planes, but I also love the idea of being able to play with 4096-color images on a $1k machine. I've been experimenting with "animation" in HAM mode (mostly by flipping through compressed digitized images), and it is easily possible. (And "juggler" also is a good example of this, although the images are ray-traced rather than digitized.) What would be the cost of a Mac II or IBM system which allowed you to do >10 frame/second 4096-color animation? (Juggler runs faster than 20 frames/sec.) Ali Ozer, ali@score.stanford.edu, ...decwrl!rocky.stanford.edu!ali