ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) (06/17/91)
On the subject of video ability, you know that the Amiga can do a 704x440 display in 4096 different colors using a little software trickery. No extra hardware needed. Some of the newer graphic programs that are coming out support this feature. Macro Pain being one of them. This is pretty close to what a lot of 24bit boards for other machines are capable of. Add to this the shading you can do in 704x440 resolution with those 4096 different colors and I think you can produce pretty much any color your going to want to see, or can see. Does anybody know if any of the programs out for CDTV are using this mode yet? I saw some of the World Atlas pictures on CDTV and my eyes couldn't see any better detail than that gave me. The pictures looked photo quality to me. Your average Joe is not going to push his nose up to the screen and say "Look, they used the wrong dithering here and I can see it!" How many consumers do you give credit for being that aware of their environment? On a smaller note, does anyone know anything more about these rumors of DCTV being used with CDTV? I'd like to hear more about CDTV's video port and how well it can handle (how much room it has) DCTV being plugged into it. Will this still provide a passthru where yet another card could be plugged into the video port, and will it all fit in there or what? I still hear people quoting $900 price tags for CDTV. This is Commodore's list price. The unit is selling for around $750 at North Coast Programming here in Cleveland. Who knows how much the ed price takes off of that! My girlfriend and me went up and checked the machine out not too long ago. She watched the guy demo it for her and she instantly wanted one! She does use her brother's Amiga 2000 to call Free-Net but that's about where her knowledge of computers ends. Judging by her response to the machine I'd say that we have a winner on our hands, *IF* the machine is demonstrated properly and *IF* Commodore does the right kind of advertising. Note to Kevin: Your too close to the subject and have lost your focus! I didn't see my girlfriend saying "Those pictures are lacking in quality just a little bit." She was taken by those pictures, the sound, and the ease of use of such a machine. Tom
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/18/91)
In <30115@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > >On a smaller note, does anyone know anything more about these rumors of DCTV >being used with CDTV? I'd like to hear more about CDTV's video port and how >well it can handle (how much room it has) DCTV being plugged into it. Will >this still provide a passthru where yet another card could be plugged into >the video port, and will it all fit in there or what? I can repeat some talk about it from a CES attendee and others on CIS: "I read in (I think) Communications Daily that Kodak says there's no way the CDTV could be made to work with the Photo-CD without a major overhaul, in effect a "CDTV-II". "Kodak will support Photo CD through a new add-in video card that plugs into the back of CDTV [...]. The Commodore Rep at the show estimated that this card would cost about $50. Frankly, I think CBM should eat the cost and make this thing standard, and allow it as a cheap, plug-in retrofit to existing CDTV units. It makes the video wonderful." "(BTW, the little card said "DCTV" on the back :-) But they're going to change the name... Don't want "CDTV DCTV" :-) "The unit was designed by Digital Creations. It's an output-only version of DCTV. At the show, it wasn't known [which company would market it]." "The only ones I saw looked very much like prototypes. Plugged in the back where it says "video slot", and also had a connector that passed through on the 23-pin port. Wouldn't work on an Amiga, since it goes in the CDTV video slot. I don't think the prototype had S/Video, but I'm sure the production units would put it back." "Commodore's PR firm didn't even know what I was talking about when I called them to ask about it." "DC gave a favorable NO COMMENT." That about covers it. Hope it helped. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/18/91)
In article <30115@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > >I saw some of the World Atlas pictures on CDTV and my eyes couldn't see any >better detail than that gave me. The pictures looked photo quality to me. Your >average Joe is not going to push his nose up to the screen and say "Look, they >used the wrong dithering here and I can see it!" I looked a bit into their files. They are all plain HAM interlace overscan, 358 x 480 pixel. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.192156.6338@ncsu.edu>, kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >In <30115@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: >> >>On a smaller note, does anyone know anything more about these rumors of DCTV >>being used with CDTV? I'd like to hear more about CDTV's video port and how >>well it can handle (how much room it has) DCTV being plugged into it. Will >>this still provide a passthru where yet another card could be plugged into >>the video port, and will it all fit in there or what? > >I can repeat some talk about it from a CES attendee and others on CIS: > > "I read in (I think) Communications Daily that Kodak says there's no way > the CDTV could be made to work with the Photo-CD without a major overhaul, > in effect a "CDTV-II". > > "Kodak will support Photo CD through a new add-in video card that plugs > into the back of CDTV [...]. The Commodore Rep at the show estimated > that this card would cost about $50. Frankly, I think CBM should eat the > cost and make this thing standard, and allow it as a cheap, plug-in > retrofit to existing CDTV units. It makes the video wonderful." I agree that Commodore should make the device standard. By making it optional, Commodore is guaranteeing that there will never be any CDTV titles available to support it. Since all CD-I titles will support 15/24-bit video, making the card standard would narrow the color capability differences between the CD-I and CDTV. >That about covers it. Hope it helped. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) (06/19/91)
CDTV And CDTV cooperative: Good question. A while back I mentioned this aS part of a good suggestion... To give CDTV owners a cheap upgrade path to realtime 24-bit. Mabye you read it wrong, but I didnt intend on giving the idea that this was actually GOING ON. Hope it clears up, Arc \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Flicker turns me on. -BJP | Get back into the SeX PiSToLs if you program in Arctangent, Naperville IL. | C. It helps. // ---------------------------- \X/ A M I G A ! \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.132410.29459@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > I agree that Commodore should make the device standard. By making >it optional, Commodore is guaranteeing that there will never be any CDTV >titles available to support it. Since all CD-I titles will support >15/24-bit video, making the card standard would narrow the color >capability differences between the CD-I and CDTV. You mean the same way, by making a CD-I Blitter optional, no CD-I software will support it? There is ample space on a CD to store both DCTV and Amiga frames. Any CDTV publisher could easily do all graphics in 24-bit, then use a script to create HAM and DCTV frames and save them to disk. I agree however, it should be standard. In fact, I think this should be added to the Amiga's chipset. After all, NTSC video is the Amiga's bag, why not add a new trick to it. >>That about covers it. Hope it helped. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ The great thing about standards is that / > \ there are so many of them to choose from. / > ------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/19/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> I agree that Commodore should make the device standard. By making >> it optional, Commodore is guaranteeing that there will never be any CDTV >> titles available to support it. Since all CD-I titles will support >> 15/24-bit video, making the card standard would narrow the color >> capability differences between the CD-I and CDTV. > > There is ample space on a CD to store both DCTV and Amiga frames. Hmm. Depends on the app and whether or not it can afford to use up the CDROM for all that double storage, of course. Technical correction to Marc: true 15-bit yes; true 24-bit no, altho DYUV does give "24-bit" in much the same way that HAM gives "11-bit" or DCTV gives "22-bit". DCTV has some problems I'll go into later, but let's lay all that aside for a while... Because something has come up which eclipses the tech specs. Everyone knows that I'm an advocate of CBM working harder on CDROM apps for the Amiga itself. CDTV apps can rely only on joystick input, so they're not quite what I'm looking forward to on my Amiga. But they're a start. Yet on CIS comes a report that CDTV developer docs discuss several ways to "prevent piracy" of CDTV discs. They give methods of preventing CDTV titles from running on an Amiga... such as looking for the CDTV parameter RAM, placing CD-audio on the first track, and so on. Hmm. For "quickie" Amiga ports which make little use of the CDROM, I can conceivably see a good reason for protection. But for others? Can any developers or CBM types comment on this report or the need? Wondering - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.195643.949@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > >Yet on CIS comes a report that CDTV developer docs discuss several ways >to "prevent piracy" of CDTV discs. They give methods of preventing >CDTV titles from running on an Amiga... such as looking for the CDTV >parameter RAM, placing CD-audio on the first track, and so on. > I don't know if it is true, but if so it is pretty silly. What developer would INTENTIONALLY cut off a certain market segment? -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/19/91)
>>Yet on CIS comes a report that CDTV developer docs discuss several ways >>to "prevent piracy" of CDTV discs. They give methods of preventing >>CDTV titles from running on an Amiga... such as looking for the CDTV >>parameter RAM, placing CD-audio on the first track, and so on. >> > I don't know if it is true, but if so it is pretty silly. >What developer would INTENTIONALLY cut off a certain market segment? It apparently is true. I suppose some Mac/IBM disc companies are used to doing this. And/or if a relatively small (say, up to 20meg) part of the disc is used, then it would be something to consider... large hard disks are getting pretty common, and "borrowing" a friend's CDTV disc might be sorely tempting to some people. Besides, then the developer could later sell _two_ disc versions: One for the CDTV, and one for the Amiga. In addition, it seems that CBM is considering jigging things so that "non-CDTV" discs can't be used on their player (like what discs? got me! oh wait. perhaps ones they didn't master themselves?). The reason behind this is simple enough: CBM gets a minor royalty off each disc. Non-CBM discs = less royalties. Both ideas make a little sense, but perhaps public reaction can make a difference in that regard :-). best - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
jjszucs@cbmvax.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.054406.27121@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: [discussion of CDTV copy protection deleted] >In addition, it seems that CBM is considering jigging things so that >"non-CDTV" discs can't be used on their player (like what discs? got me! >oh wait. perhaps ones they didn't master themselves?). The reason >behind this is simple enough: CBM gets a minor royalty off each disc. >Non-CBM discs = less royalties. Before booting from a CD-ROM, the CDTV system software verifies that a "trademark file" is present on the disc. This "trademark file" is licensed to the developers for a small fee and may be placed on the disc by ANY CD-ROM mastering company (not just Commodore). It does not prevent booting from discs not mastered by Commodore -- it only prevents booting from discs that do not contain the trademark file. There are justified legal reasons for doing this, although I'm not completely aware of the details since I'm more involved with the technical side of things. With CDTV, you can read any disc that complies with the ISO 9660 standard for CD-ROM. This includes most CD-ROMs available for the IBM PC and Apple Macintosh families. You cannot boot from non-CDTV discs and you cannot run the programs on those discs if they are for a different platform (such as the PC or the Macintosh). Of course, you cannot run software for other platforms on the Amiga either without emulation hardware and/or software. However, if you have software that can handle the format of the data on the discs, you can use the data. For example, NASA (in conjunction with the University of Colorado (I believe)), publishes a set of CD-ROMs containing images from the Voyager missions and other space probes. The CD-ROM itself only contains data. When you order the package, you can choose viewer software for either the IBM PC or the Apple Macintosh, which is provided on floppy disk. If viewer software were written for the Amiga (or for CDTV specificially), you could read and view the images from those non-CDTV CD-ROMs using a CDTV. >Both ideas make a little sense, but perhaps public reaction can make >a difference in that regard :-). best - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> -- ============================================================================== || John J. Szucs || The opinions expressed are my own and || || Amiga Systems Section || in no way represent the opinions or || || Product Assurance Department || policies of my employer or any || || Commodore Int'l Services Co. || associated entity. || ============================================================================== ...{rutgers|uunet|pyramid}!cbmvax!jjszucs "Think of it as evolution in jjszucs@cbmvax.commodore.com action." - J. Pournelle/L. Niven
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/20/91)
jjszucs@cbmvax.commodore.com (John J. Szucs) writes: > kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu writes: >> [discussion of CDTV copy protection deleted] >> >> In addition, it seems that CBM is considering jigging things so that >> "non-CDTV" discs can't be used on their player (like what discs? got me! >> oh wait. perhaps ones they didn't master themselves?). The reason >> behind this is simple enough: CBM gets a minor royalty off each disc. >> Non-CBM discs = less royalties. > >Before booting from a CD-ROM, the CDTV system software verifies that a >"trademark file" is present on the disc. > >This "trademark file" is licensed to the developers for a small fee and >may be placed on the disc by ANY CD-ROM mastering company (not just >Commodore). It does not prevent booting from discs not mastered by >Commodore -- it only prevents booting from discs that do not contain the >trademark file. Many thanks for the more detailed explanation than I had heard. So the mastering guess was wrong, but the upshot is still that all bootable CDTV disc authors must pay a small "royalty" to Commodore. Well heck, I'd probably ask for the same, if it were my baby :-). > There are justified legal reasons for doing this, although I'm not > completely aware of the details since I'm more involved with the > technical side of things. Yah, it certainly makes sense if the boot contains Amiga OS code, which will be most of the time. And a small fee wouldn't hurt anyone else... altho it might raise some Nintendo-style questions of an app monopoly. Ah, but that's a territory for the lawyers :-) A popular concern is over future disc interchangability between CDTV players and Amigas. The original copy protection issue is far more critical in that respect. Let's all hope that few disc titlers think that it's needed. regards and thx - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/21/91)
In <30115@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > Note to Kevin: Your too close to the subject and have lost your focus! > I didn't see my girlfriend saying "Those pictures are lacking in quality > just a little bit." She was taken by those pictures, the sound, and > the ease of use of such a machine. Tom, I don't doubt you a bit! Still, that's like having never seen a television before. It's new to her. It'll be a more informative reaction once she's seen something else to compare it to, wouldn't you agree? Hmm. I suppose you're also hinting that technical specs aren't everything. Well, I agree, of course. That's why I only bring them up when someone prints an outright mistake. Isn't that what net groups are partly for, to spread and use true information instead of misinformation? Sure. I've also said, more than once, that carefully chosen pictures may not show any quality loss. Yet the extreme interest all around here in both new video chips and in DCTV, is proof that there _is_ a desire and need for better CDTV graphics. The humorous and hypocritical part of all this is that _if_ CDTV had the better graphics, what the heck do you think would be the first technical spec cited by CDTV boosters? Be honest, guys. BTW, one of the things I try never to discuss is whether CDTV will succeed. So it's a little exasperating to try to keep people informed, and then have someone like Ray continuously put his *own* words of doom into *my* mouth. best regards! - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.041029.23416@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >So it's a little exasperating to try to keep people informed, and then have >someone like Ray continuously put his *own* words of doom into *my* mouth. When have I ever put words into your mouth. I may make comments like "Just because CD-I has better specs that doesn't mean CDTV is a failure.", but I never said "According to Kevin, CDTV is a failure." Why quote specs in the first place if not to somehow show one product is superior than another. We all do it, and we all know specs have little to do with what the consumer buys, especially when the home shopping club can sell 100 CGA 4.77/7mhz IBMs in one night for $1000 a piece. Sure, HAM isn't 24bit, but it is by no means 16-color CGA either. When I convert GIF pics with HAMLAB they look damn good, and I _have_ seen 24-bit displays so I can compare them. If CD-I delivers all it promises and for below $1000 I might be impressed, however if Commodore actually markets CDTV correctly, it may not matter anyway. I think what probably irritates a lot of CD-I developers most, is that Commodore "a near backrupt company" (as most people like to think) did in 2 years what CD-I has failed to produce in 6. > best regards! - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
sjorr@nsq.uucp (Stephen Orr) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun18.132410.29459@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > I agree that Commodore should make the device standard. By making >it optional, Commodore is guaranteeing that there will never be any CDTV >titles available to support it. Since all CD-I titles will support >15/24-bit video, making the card standard would narrow the color >capability differences between the CD-I and CDTV. I believe that you are wrong. The DCTV is famous for it's ability to 'trick' iff, making the standard very easy to implement. If there is some software way to ask 'Is there a DCTV available? and if so use these pictures instead of those.' Then it would not be a difficult thing to add DCTV support. I am already thinking along these lines for the CDTV stuff I'm almost finished, and that's based on rumours of a possible device. The ability to show off to far superior colour of DCTV is enough of a draw to forceme to concider it. Besides, the CD-ROM is awful big, and I need something to fill it up with :) Stephen Orr SandIsoft
jtravis@dworkin.Amber.mccc.edu (Jim, Sysop) (06/28/91)
sjorr@nsq.uucp (Stephen Orr) writes: > In article <1991Jun18.132410.29459@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu > > I agree that Commodore should make the device standard. By making > >it optional, Commodore is guaranteeing that there will never be any CDTV > >titles available to support it. Since all CD-I titles will support > >15/24-bit video, making the card standard would narrow the color > >capability differences between the CD-I and CDTV. > > I believe that you are wrong. The DCTV is famous for it's ability to 'trick' > iff, making the standard very easy to implement. If there is some software > way to ask 'Is there a DCTV available? and if so use these pictures instead > of those.' Then it would not be a difficult thing to add DCTV support. I > am already thinking along these lines for the CDTV stuff I'm almost finished, > and that's based on rumours of a possible device. The ability to show off > to far superior colour of DCTV is enough of a draw to forceme to concider it. > > Besides, the CD-ROM is awful big, and I need something to fill it up with :) > > Stephen Orr > SandIsoft Tricks? Indeed! Does everyone know that there's a DCTV kit available for downloading that lets us programme a DCTV option into our software? Very easy to implement, from what I can see. I have it available on my bbs CSAccess..watch the sig for rules and instructions) for the downloading. Oh yeah..it's called DCTVPROG.LZH We're running a version of UNIX waffle, so you know what you're all in for. If I could FTP it somewhere, I would. Jim ..and now the commercial.. --------///----------------------------------------------------------- /// Jim Trascapoulos * CSAccess BBS * 609-584-8774 /// *** Usenet: jtravis@dworkin.amber.mccc.Edu *** \\\ /// "Spread the legs, open breach,erect launcher, apply lube, \\\/// ram, home into the breach, fire."- Field Artillery manual --\XX/----------------------------------------------------------------