rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/13/91)
WEST CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.A., 1991 JUN 11 (NB) -- Commodore
International has announced new features for its CDTV multimedia
computer that improve the device's video capabilities. The company
also said it would extend CDTV's availability.
One new feature, CDXL, will let developers display video images
from a CD-ROM disk on screen. Limited to images covering about one
third of the screen because of the amount of data that must be
transferred, CDXL is an interim solution until the Motion Picture
Expert Group (MPEG) standard is completed.
Commodore spokesman David Rosen told Newsbytes no additional
hardware or software is needed to use CDXL. Software developers
simply need specifications from Commodore to know how it works, he
said.
CDXL can display about 12 frames per second, or half what is
normally used for full-motion video.
CDTV-PIP allows a standard video image from an outside source, such
as a television feed or video cassette recorder, to be displayed
simultaneously with a running CDTV application. CDTV-PIP will
require a plug-in video card that replaces the current video card
but requires no software upgrade. It is expected to be available
early next year, Rosen said.
Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new
Photo CD system. Photo CDs, planned for June 1992 introduction, can
store up to 100 35-millimeter photographic images on writable CD-
ROM discs. Consumers will be able to insert the Photo CD discs into
the CDTV player and view their high-resolution photographs on
standard TV sets, Commodore said.
Commodore also said it would make CDTV available in a number of
additional U.S. centers and in France, Germany, and Italy during
June. CDTV was launched in five U.S. cities and in the United
Kingdom and Canada in May.
--
/ 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 * /taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.192948.20028@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >WEST CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.A., 1991 JUN 11 (NB) -- Commodore >International has announced new features for its CDTV multimedia >computer that improve the device's video capabilities. The company >also said it would extend CDTV's availability. > >One new feature, CDXL, will let developers display video images >from a CD-ROM disk on screen. Limited to images covering about one >third of the screen because of the amount of data that must be >transferred, CDXL is an interim solution until the Motion Picture >Expert Group (MPEG) standard is completed. Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? If so, I don't know what Commodore is waiting for. > >Commodore spokesman David Rosen told Newsbytes no additional >hardware or software is needed to use CDXL. Software developers >simply need specifications from Commodore to know how it works, he >said. > >CDXL can display about 12 frames per second, or half what is >normally used for full-motion video. > >CDTV-PIP allows a standard video image from an outside source, such >as a television feed or video cassette recorder, to be displayed >simultaneously with a running CDTV application. CDTV-PIP will >require a plug-in video card that replaces the current video card >but requires no software upgrade. It is expected to be available >early next year, Rosen said. Why will this thing take so long to develop? This CDTV-PIP device is simply a genlock, and Commodore has been producing those for years. For Commodore to use this device to advantage over the CD-I competition, they should get this device out as soon as possible. > >Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new >Photo CD system. Photo CDs, planned for June 1992 introduction, can >store up to 100 35-millimeter photographic images on writable CD- >ROM discs. Consumers will be able to insert the Photo CD discs into >the CDTV player and view their high-resolution photographs on >standard TV sets, Commodore said. This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to digitized true-color stills. > >Commodore also said it would make CDTV available in a number of >additional U.S. centers and in France, Germany, and Italy during >June. CDTV was launched in five U.S. cities and in the United >Kingdom and Canada in May. > > > > >-- >/ 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 * / ------------------------------------------------------------- / 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. / -------------------------------------------------------
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/13/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> One new feature, CDXL, will let developers display video images >> from a CD-ROM disk on screen. Limited to images covering about one >> third of the screen because of the amount of data that must be >> transferred, CDXL is an interim solution until the Motion Picture >> Expert Group (MPEG) standard is completed. > > Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? If so, I don't > know what Commodore is waiting for. Oddly, I hear conflicting reports. News releases say it was completed in December. Insiders say it wasn't quite done. Who knows? But I'd guess that CBM would smartly wait for cheaper MPEG chips from other manufacturers (such as Motorola, who is developing them for CD-I). I'm curious myself as to what CDXL is, if it (as the report says) requires "no additional hardware or software". >> Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new >> Photo CD system. [...] > > This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color > capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I > systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically > improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to > digitized true-color stills. That's why CBM is supposedly talking about selling an inexpensive ($50?) DCTV output-only adapter to Photo-CD users. Altho that would still have several times lesser resolution than stock CD-I hardware (which has TWO nice video systems, allowing hardware mixing/fading between photos), a CDTV/DCTV adapter would be a lot better than using stock HAM mode. CBM is still trying. Gotta give them that! - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.205030.4401@news.iastate.edu| taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: | Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? If so, I don't |know what Commodore is waiting for. I've heard conflicting stories on this. Anyone know for sure whether or not MPEG actually is completed? |>Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new |>Photo CD system. Photo CDs, planned for June 1992 introduction, can |>store up to 100 35-millimeter photographic images on writable CD- |>ROM discs. Consumers will be able to insert the Photo CD discs into |>the CDTV player and view their high-resolution photographs on |>standard TV sets, Commodore said. | | This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color |capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I |systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically |improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to |digitized true-color stills. One major point to take into consideration when comparing CDTV to CD-I - CDTV is shipping and being sold, CD-I is not. | ------------------------------------------------------------- | / 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. / | ------------------------------------------------------- -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/13/91)
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: > > I've heard conflicting stories on this. Anyone know for sure whether > or not MPEG actually is completed? Since I was wondering the same thing in another message, I think I'll ask around. There definitely are conflicting stories everywhere on this. >> [stuff about Photo-CD on CDTV player] >One major point to take into consideration when comparing CDTV to CD-I - >CDTV is shipping and being sold, CD-I is not. Not a major consideration in this case, since Photo-CD isn't due out until mid-1992 anyway :-) :-). regards - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.205030.4401@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun12.192948.20028@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>One new feature, CDXL, will let developers display video images >>from a CD-ROM disk on screen. Limited to images covering about one >>third of the screen because of the amount of data that must be >>transferred, CDXL is an interim solution until the Motion Picture >>Expert Group (MPEG) standard is completed. > > Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? If so, I don't >know what Commodore is waiting for. No, it's not yet completed. Perhaps you mix this up with JPEG, the standard for still pictures. >>Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new >>Photo CD system. > > This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color >capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I >systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically >improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to >digitized true-color stills. Typically Marc. You *must* (you all, not only Marc!) look at those pictures found in the World Vista Atlas CDTV title (others tell me that also that CD with "New Weapon technology" or similar has outstanding images, didn't see them myself until now)!!! Many of these pictures are really photo quality. I only saw comparable quality in that one Fish disk (was it 196?) with racing cars, a honda cycle and an airplane. - This boils down for me that the HAM mode of the Amiga still can beat very 256 color VGA plain to the ground, if, yes *IF*, you use a VERY GOOD algorithm to convert your raw picture into HAM. There must be some black magic with dithering and all this. For me, I didn't succeed with such an algorithm, I tried, but got always very clear bandings with weird transition colors. Funnily, also a few pictures on the mentioned World Vista CD show these aliases, but they are really few, compared to all the beautiful ones. Now if somebody could teach us a little about the magics of HAM algorithms... I crosspost this to c.s.a.multimedia. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/14/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color >capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I >systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically >improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to >digitized true-color stills. As long as people can see two hands, two feet, and a head on their baby pictures, they won't care... Look how many people use SLP on thier VCR's?! I would say the video out of the CDTV is cleaner than SLP on a vcr. This will allow them to take their pictures and lock them up in the can, and still allow them to show them off to all their friends without destroying the pictures with fingerprints. And if Commodore has cut a deal with Kodak, CD-I won't have the Kodak name to parade around. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / 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. / > ------------------------------------------------------- ^^^ is this thing supposed to look like a UFO? Everything makes sence now! -- C-UseNet V0.42d Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun12.205030.4401@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun12.192948.20028@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>CDTV-PIP allows a standard video image from an outside source, such >>as a television feed or video cassette recorder, to be displayed >>simultaneously with a running CDTV application. CDTV-PIP will >>require a plug-in video card that replaces the current video card >>but requires no software upgrade. It is expected to be available >>early next year, Rosen said. > > Why will this thing take so long to develop? This CDTV-PIP device >is simply a genlock, and Commodore has been producing those for years. >For Commodore to use this device to advantage over the CD-I competition, >they should get this device out as soon as possible. Where do you see it saying it is a GenLock? I didn't. In fact, the sub-name is "PIP" which is normally used to mean "Picture In a Picture", such as is found in some TV's and VCR's. In fact, the description of it sounds EXACTLY like that. Having PIP is *not* "simply a genlock", which you would be free to use ANY normal Amiga external genlock to get the effects. This sounds like a usefull new feature, which is not even available for Amiga computers yet. Besides, what does having a genlock have to do with CD-I? The magnavox unit is not even expandable, and I doubt that ANY unit below $1000 will support a genlock any time soon. Read thr articles before replying (And stop including paragraphs that are totally unrelated to what you are making a comment on. We saw the article the first time around.) >>Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new >>Photo CD system. Photo CDs, planned for June 1992 introduction, can >>store up to 100 35-millimeter photographic images on writable CD- >>ROM discs. Consumers will be able to insert the Photo CD discs into >>the CDTV player and view their high-resolution photographs on >>standard TV sets, Commodore said. > This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color >capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I >systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically >improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to >digitized true-color stills. Oh please. I am sure this will be SOFTWARE ONLY system. How many people you know would rather use a system that might not have all the color clarity (assuming that the disks digitally encode the data which the CDTV would not be able to represent with 4096 colors. If it is done like the other disk video formats there won't be ANY difference at all, since the CDTV graphics will not be used) when it was included for free, or pay for the special viewer hardware you normally need to play the pictures back (though some I have seen actually allow the camera to play them back on the TV, and you can get a color printer that can also read the disks and print them out). I have not heard of CD-I even saying they intend to support this. Have you heard something I haven't? >> >>Commodore also said it would make CDTV available in a number of >>additional U.S. centers and in France, Germany, and Italy during >>June. CDTV was launched in five U.S. cities and in the United >>Kingdom and Canada in May. (Yet another paragraph MB included without making any comment on. I think he just spouts off and then hits "send") Dave
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <1349@cbmger.UUCP>, peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <1991Jun12.205030.4401@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >>In article <1991Jun12.192948.20028@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>> >>>One new feature, CDXL, will let developers display video images >>>from a CD-ROM disk on screen. Limited to images covering about one >>>third of the screen because of the amount of data that must be >>>transferred, CDXL is an interim solution until the Motion Picture >>>Expert Group (MPEG) standard is completed. >> >> Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? If so, I don't >>know what Commodore is waiting for. > >No, it's not yet completed. Perhaps you mix this up with JPEG, the >standard for still pictures. Give me a break! I know what JPEG is, and what the differences are between JPEG and MPEG. At least two who should know about such things have said themselves that there are conflicting reports about MPEG's completeness. > >>>Commodore announced plans to make CDTV compatible with Kodak's new >>>Photo CD system. >> >> This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color >>capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I >>systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically >>improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to >>digitized true-color stills. > >Typically Marc. You *must* (you all, not only Marc!) look at those >pictures found in the World Vista Atlas CDTV title (others tell me >that also that CD with "New Weapon technology" or similar has >outstanding images, didn't see them myself until now)!!! Many of >these pictures are really photo quality. [stuff about Amiga pictures deleted] Give me a break, again! I have been using Amigas longer than many of the people at Commodore, so I am very well aquainted with what the Amiga's graphics are capable of. True, the Amiga can display up to 4096 colors at once. However, none of the Amigas graphics modes are capable of going beyond 12-bit color, in any resolution. When you are talking about photgraphs, the number of shades of each color that you have in the color palette is *FAR* more important than the number of total colors that you can display at once. For instance, on the Amiga you only have at most three dozen shades of skin tones. This compares to the CD-I, VGA, and MAC systems, where you have 3-4 HUNDRED shades of skin tones. This is the reason that 256-color GIFs of people look far better on a MAC or VGA system than on an Amiga, even though the Amiga can display more colors at once than the CD-I, VGA, and MAC systems. >I only saw comparable >quality in that one Fish disk (was it 196?) with racing cars, a >honda cycle and an airplane. - This boils down for me that the HAM >mode of the Amiga still can beat very 256 color VGA plain to the >ground, if, yes *IF*, you use a VERY GOOD algorithm to convert your >raw picture into HAM. See above. On the Amiga, the theoretical best that you could ever do is 12-bit color. This compares to the CD-I systems, which have 24-bit palettes and can display 15-bits of color at once (I think). If pictures of people look far better on systems with 8-bit color than on an Amiga,you can be pretty damn confident that the CD-I systems -- which will make even the systems with 8-bit color look pretty lame -- will make the Amiga look very silly. > >-- >Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... >Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk ------------------------------------------------------------- / 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. / -------------------------------------------------------
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <rkushner.7483@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color >>capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I >>systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically >>improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to >>digitized true-color stills. > >As long as people can see two hands, two feet, and a head on their baby >pictures, they won't care... Look how many people use SLP on thier VCR's?! >I would say the video out of the CDTV is cleaner than SLP on a vcr. This will >allow them to take their pictures and lock them up in the can, and still allow >them to show them off to all their friends without destroying the pictures >with fingerprints. And if Commodore has cut a deal with Kodak, CD-I won't have >the Kodak name to parade around. Remember, Kodak isn't the only game in town. By the time that the Kodak systems are available, the CD-I machines will be out in force, and some Japanese company could easily come up with a device similar to Kodak's Photo-CD. A Canon XAPSHOT connected to a CD-I system could easily sub for a Photo-CD, for instance. I will say this again, in a different way: nless Commodore drastically improves the CDTV's color capabilities by time the Photo-CD systems become available, Commodore will be laughed out of the country. Commodore has a chance of beating the CD-I systems in the area of animation, but they do not have a ghost of a chance of beating them in the area of still pictures. The CDTV's pseudo-12-bit graphics pale against the 15/24-bit graphics of the CD-I systems. > >-- C-UseNet V0.42d > Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 > P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis > Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support > UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) > DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say. ------------------------------------------------------------- / 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. / -------------------------------------------------------
bryand@cascade.ens.tek.com (Bryan Duff) (06/15/91)
In article <rkushner.7483@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: [stuff deleted] > I will say this again, in a different way: nless Commodore drastically >improves the CDTV's color capabilities by time the Photo-CD systems become >available, Commodore will be laughed out of the country. Commodore has >a chance of beating the CD-I systems in the area of animation, but they >do not have a ghost of a chance of beating them in the area of still >pictures. The CDTV's pseudo-12-bit graphics pale against the 15/24-bit >graphics of the CD-I systems. [other stuff deleted] First off I will admit I know little about either system so I won't make any claims about them. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way let me ask for a little information about these systems. Correct me if I am wrong but CD-I and CD-ROM are the storage protocols for the optical disks and really have little to do with what the systems (ie. CDTV et. al.) pull off the disk. What resolution is CD-ROM capable of? How would one go about upgrading the CDTV system to utilize any available increased resolution? Is it as simple as adding in a video board? Now what would be the cost of this enhanced system? I know that there aren't any CD-I systems on the market _yet_, but what is the expected price of these systems? Under $1000? Please, This is no flame, I just would like to try and get this in perspective. If a CD-I system is 15/24bit and costs $1500+ and a CD-ROM system that is 12bit for $800 and can be upgraded for a few hundred (just a guess.) Then might not the CD-I people come out with something similar to initially keep the cost down to lure poeple to their product? Just curious. | My views in no way reflect those of my employer | -- Bryan Duff Network Engineer Network Systems Corp.
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/15/91)
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> Why will this thing take so long to develop? This CDTV-PIP device >> is simply a genlock, and Commodore has been producing those for years. >> For Commodore to use this device to advantage over the CD-I competition, >> they should get this device out as soon as possible. > Where do you see it saying it is a GenLock? I didn't. In fact, the > sub-name is "PIP" which is normally used to mean "Picture In a Picture", Yah. A PIP device would require storage for an incoming picture which must be digitized and then overlaid on the CDTV output. Altho this could be slightly easier in CDTV's case, because its video could be genlock'd to the external video input. > ...sounds like a usefull new feature, which is not even available for Amiga > computers yet. Besides, what does having a genlock have to do with CD-I? > The magnavox unit is not even expandable, and I doubt that ANY unit below > $1000 will support a genlock any time soon. But possible. The CD-I chipset was made to support external syncing, and even has a mode making it easy to store digitized video into its vidram. It WAS designed by people who also make commercial digital TV chips, after all :-) cheers - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/15/91)
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> This sounds nice, but the problem is that the CDTV's color >> capabilities are hardly photographic, especially compared to the CD-I >> systems. Unless the color capabilities of the CDTV are drastically >> improved, the limited color of the CDTV will not do justice to >> digitized true-color stills. > > Oh please. I am sure this will be SOFTWARE ONLY system. How many people > you know would rather use a system that might not have all the color > clarity (assuming that the disks digitally encode the data which the CDTV > would not be able to represent with 4096 colors. If it is done like the > other disk video formats there won't be ANY difference at all, since the > CDTV graphics will not be used) [...] Photos are digitized, edited on Suns, compressed, and stored as digital files. These are pictures with something like 18 million pixels, thus allowing them to be magnified and/or displayed on future systems with more res than now. Kodak says "image quality exceeds all HDTV standards under consideration". They are decoded and displayed on whatever video hardware the computer has available. And MB is irrefutably correct that stock CDTV is hardly the best platform for that. Bad enough for color and fleshtones, but also consider B&W photographs... and then think about the limited greyscale of stock CDTV. > I have not heard of CD-I even saying they intend to support this. > Have you heard something I haven't? Yes :-) Quoted from the Kodak press release NINE months ago: "The Photo CDs will also produce high quality photographic display on Philips' new Compact Disc Interactive (CD-I) players." Moreover, Philips and Sony hold the main patents on CDROM technology. (That's why we even have a standard cdrom layout in the first place.) In other words, Kodak and Philips were partners in creating Photo-CD... and Philips will be building the first dedicated Photo-CD players. Hope the info helped. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/15/91)
>>> Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? >> No, it's not yet completed. > At least two who should know about such things have said themselves that > there are conflicting reports about MPEG's completeness. The conflicting reports were real enough. I remember saving off a news report saying the audio portion was finished last September. But don't listen to us... what we need is someone who _does_ know for sure :-) In any case, I asked someone whom *I* thought would know <chuckle>, and was told that of the three MPEG sections (video, audio, system integration), only the video is done. And that's the best I could find out so far. regards to all - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.181002.28902@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >pictures. The CDTV's pseudo-12-bit graphics pale against the 15/24-bit >graphics of the CD-I systems. Marc, CD-I is not 24-bit color, nor 24-bit palette, nor 15 bit. CD-I is DYUV encoded just like DCTV. This means it is limited to composite (same limitations the Toaster has). It also means CD-I will be interlaced on normal-tv's unless it doesn't have >200 lines. BTW, DYUV encoding has some of the same draw backs that HAM has. You can't change colors quick enough (I think you can change instensity every pixel, but color can only be changed every few pixels) Marc, I propose you do an experiment once just to see how FOOLED you are by the "inadequate" resolution of everyday television. Go to your VCR, record a few seconds of video (it's even better if the video has some titling from a TV commercial so you can see that awful flicker from the edges). Now that you have few frames recorder, freeze-frame one with lots o color. Notice anything? Yep, it looks HORRIBLE, reminicent of old CGA dithered GIFS (if you were in SLP, and you have a normal VCR) >> >>-- C-UseNet V0.42d >> Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 >> P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis >> Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support >> UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) >> DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / 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 * /
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/15/91)
bryand@cascade.ens.tek.com (Bryan Duff) writes: >In article <rkushner.7483@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wr >[stuff deleted] ^^^^^ the stuff that must have been deleted. I did not say anything quoted in this article! Don't put MB's words in my mouth!!!! > >> I will say this again, in a different way: nless Commodore drastically >>improves the CDTV's color capabilities by time the Photo-CD systems become >>available, Commodore will be laughed out of the country. Commodore has >>a chance of beating the CD-I systems in the area of animation, but they >>do not have a ghost of a chance of beating them in the area of still >>pictures. The CDTV's pseudo-12-bit graphics pale against the 15/24-bit >>graphics of the CD-I systems. > >[other stuff deleted] > >| My views in no way reflect those of my employer | > >-- >Bryan Duff >Network Engineer >Network Systems Corp. > -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.214105.1414@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >They are decoded and displayed on whatever video hardware the computer has >available. And MB is irrefutably correct that stock CDTV is hardly the best >platform for that. Bad enough for color and fleshtones, but also consider >B&W photographs... and then think about the limited greyscale of stock CDTV. Well, if CDTV is "inadequate" for fleshtones and B&W, so is CD-I. I have plenty of IFF and GIFs of people and I don't see anything wrong with them. They aren't as good as a 35mm photo, but neither is CD-I or any composite picture you could come up with. CD-I has more colors but the resolution is blurry. DYUV also has problems with the blue shades bleeding. DYUV is suited for moving pictures, not stills. For a still picture you want high-resolution and vibrant, clear colors otherwise the human visual system will start to pick out all the little annoying details like pixelization, color bleeding/banding, etc. The Amiga chipset can produce superb results depending on the Image processing software used and the quality of the original picture. Neither CDTV nor CD-I are suited for displaying high quality stills. >> I have not heard of CD-I even saying they intend to support this. >> Have you heard something I haven't? > >Yes :-) Quoted from the Kodak press release NINE months ago: > > "The Photo CDs will also produce high quality photographic display > on Philips' new Compact Disc Interactive (CD-I) players." Assuming CD-I gets a revised chipset. NTSC can hardly be considered "high quality" when compared to 24-bit megapixel. By the time CD-I and Koak's system hits the market CDTV could already have the DCTV set which lets you rival CD-I's image quality. >Moreover, Philips and Sony hold the main patents on CDROM technology. >(That's why we even have a standard cdrom layout in the first place.) >In other words, Kodak and Philips were partners in creating Photo-CD... >and Philips will be building the first dedicated Photo-CD players. Hmm, until HDTV comes along I think I'd rather have a 35mm photo for family memories instead of a blurry picture displayed on a TV screen. >Hope the info helped. - 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 * /
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/15/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > Marc, CD-I is not 24-bit color, nor 24-bit palette, nor 15 bit. WRONG. No it doesn't have 24-bit color (altho DYUV is pseudo-24-bit, just as HAM is pseudo-12-bit). But CD-I does have a 24-bit palette for its CLUT modes, and it also has a 15-bit/pixel RGB direct mode. >CD-I is DYUV encoded just like DCTV. This means it is limited to >composite (same limitations the Toaster has). WRONG. The output is always RGB, which is then converted to composite. However, I never mentioned this before. But thanks for asking first :-). And DYUV is just one the video modes. I've told you THAT many times. >It also means CD-I will be interlaced on normal-tv's unless it doesn't >have >200 lines. HUH? Of course it has interlaced modes! What do you think a consumer interactive-TV unit would output, anyway? VGA frequencies? >BTW, DYUV encoding has some of the same draw backs that HAM has. >You can't change colors quick enough (I think you can change >intensity every pixel, but color can only be changed every few pixels) Not quite. Color DATA can only change every two pixels; luminance every pixel. But those two adjacent pixel colors are _also_ interpolated via hardware. In addition, the DYUV range of 16 million colors, and the better luminance control, beats the pants off the far more limited 4096 color HAM mode. You're correct that except for prerecorded animations, neither DYUV nor HAM are great for realtime anim calculations. But that's obvious. [ An incredible 20 lines' worth of signatures deleted] Please don't even bother responding, Ray. It's very apparent that you've not been paying attention all these months. I'll be posting some articles later on, which you should obviously read. - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun15.025015.13046@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, Ray writes: >>[ stock CDTV is ] bad enough for color and fleshtones, but also consider >>B&W photographs... and then think about the limited greyscale of stock CDTV. > >Well, if CDTV is "inadequate" for fleshtones and B&W, so is CD-I. Bogus conclusion. In many cases, 64 grey levels are considered sufficient (and necessary). CD-I has 256 shades of grey available per pixel, but CDTV has only 16. What we have to wait and see, is if it's true that CBM plans to make a DCTV adapter available to Photo-CD customers. >> "The Photo CDs will also produce high quality photographic display >> on Philips' new Compact Disc Interactive (CD-I) players." > >Assuming CD-I gets a revised chipset. NTSC can hardly be considered >"high quality" when compared to 24-bit megapixel. By the time CD-I >and Kodak's system hits the market CDTV could already have the DCTV >set which lets you rival CD-I's image quality. True, obviously NTSC can't show all the Photo-CD pixels. But then, you'd need a workstation to do that, wouldn't you? The majority of people will be viewing them on their home TV, for which CD-I is ideal. Kodak's idea is that players will zoom and pan around the image. And don't compare DCTV to CD-I's DYUV. They are not the same at all. DCTV has only a quarter of the color range, only half the horizontal color resolution, and only half the vertical luminance resolution. Not to mention that the higher res chipset planes used for DCTV would further slow down the CDTV cpu, something DYUV does not do on CD-I. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (06/15/91)
In article <1349@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: > >Typically Marc. You *must* (you all, not only Marc!) look at those >pictures found in the World Vista Atlas CDTV title (others tell me >that also that CD with "New Weapon technology" or similar has >outstanding images, didn't see them myself until now)!!! Many of >these pictures are really photo quality. I only saw comparable >quality in that one Fish disk (was it 196?) with racing cars, a >honda cycle and an airplane. - This boils down for me that the HAM >mode of the Amiga still can beat very 256 color VGA plain to the >ground, if, yes *IF*, you use a VERY GOOD algorithm to convert your >raw picture into HAM. There must be some black magic with dithering >and all this. For me, I didn't succeed with such an algorithm, I >tried, but got always very clear bandings with weird transition >colors. Funnily, also a few pictures on the mentioned World Vista CD >show these aliases, but they are really few, compared to all the >beautiful ones. Now if somebody could teach us a little about the >magics of HAM algorithms... > >-- >Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...>Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk O.K., this is something I've noticed. The pictures on that particular Fred Fish disk are absolutely stunning HAM images, and I believe that the poster even said that NO antialiasing had been performed on the images, even so, they look AWESOME! To reiterate Peter's question, "Why is that?" I've also noticed that digitizers for the Amiga, like DigiView, seem to generate much better images than, for instance, .gif files that have been converted. Is, or isn't, this my imagination? Assuming it's not my imagination, is this caused by the substantial differences between HAM mode on the Amiga (with it's pallet selection or however it works), and .gif-type modes (i.e.: 8 bit-planes) on PC's?? Further, has anyone used TAD or TAD Pro out there? How well do these programs convert 21+ bit images to HAM? More bits equals better conversion doesn't it? Finally, (this is something I'm really dieing (sp?) to know the answer to) I know people buy DigiView, so where are all the great HAM images?? Questions, questions, questions, --George -- George L. Skank |Five years ago I couldn't spell engineer. /// Senior, Electrical Engineering |Now I are one. /// Iowa State University, Ames, IA | \\\ /// skank@iastate.edu |Phone: (515) 233-2165 \\X//
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun15.064022.27467@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >> Marc, CD-I is not 24-bit color, nor 24-bit palette, nor 15 bit. > >WRONG. No it doesn't have 24-bit color (altho DYUV is pseudo-24-bit, >just as HAM is pseudo-12-bit). But CD-I does have a 24-bit palette >for its CLUT modes, and it also has a 15-bit/pixel RGB direct mode. You never mentioned it had a CLUT before, you said it had a DYUV mode, and an RLE mode. >>CD-I is DYUV encoded just like DCTV. This means it is limited to >>composite (same limitations the Toaster has). > >WRONG. The output is always RGB, which is then converted to composite. >However, I never mentioned this before. But thanks for asking first :-). >And DYUV is just one the video modes. I've told you THAT many times. I don't care if the output was 64bit color, what matters is what the end user sees, and that is NTSC composite. When it converts to composite, it loses a lot. >>It also means CD-I will be interlaced on normal-tv's unless it doesn't >>have >200 lines. > >HUH? Of course it has interlaced modes! What do you think a consumer >interactive-TV unit would output, anyway? VGA frequencies? This means still pictures aren't going to look so hot flickering and all that. >>BTW, DYUV encoding has some of the same draw backs that HAM has. >>You can't change colors quick enough (I think you can change >>intensity every pixel, but color can only be changed every few pixels) > >Not quite. Color DATA can only change every two pixels; luminance every pixel. >But those two adjacent pixel colors are _also_ interpolated via hardware. >In addition, the DYUV range of 16 million colors, and the better luminance >control, beats the pants off the far more limited 4096 color HAM mode. >You're correct that except for prerecorded animations, neither DYUV >nor HAM are great for realtime anim calculations. But that's obvious. No, they are better for anim than they are for still pictures which is what I am talking about. Composite sucks when it comes to still-photo quality pictures. >[ An incredible 20 lines' worth of signatures deleted] > >Please don't even bother responding, Ray. It's very apparent that you've >not been paying attention all these months. I'll be posting some articles >later on, which you should obviously read. - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> I have been paying attention, but 99.9% of all televisions in this country are composite, very few people have TVs take RGB inputs and function as monitors. The arguement is over _STILL_ pictures (displaying kodak pictures) Composite television doesn't have the resolution quality, nor the colors to match a true 24bit picture. HAM is no less adequate for displaying photo-quality pics than CD-I DYUV is, the bottle-neck is the display device which is Television. Sorry, but I'll take 35mm pictures of my relatives over CDTV or CD-I anyday. -- / 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 * /
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun15.064926.27796@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >In article <1991Jun15.025015.13046@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, Ray writes: >>>[ stock CDTV is ] bad enough for color and fleshtones, but also consider >>>B&W photographs... and then think about the limited greyscale of stock CDTV. >> >>Well, if CDTV is "inadequate" for fleshtones and B&W, so is CD-I. > >Bogus conclusion. In many cases, 64 grey levels are considered sufficient >(and necessary). CD-I has 256 shades of grey available per pixel, but >CDTV has only 16. What we have to wait and see, is if it's true that >CBM plans to make a DCTV adapter available to Photo-CD customers. It's not a bogus conclusion. Neither CDTV nor CD-I are suitable for still-photo-color quality images because NTSC isn't. Nothing you can say will change it. Dump a HAM pic to tape once using the A520, the quality looks no worse than normal television, but it will nowhere near 35mm film. >>> "The Photo CDs will also produce high quality photographic display >>> on Philips' new Compact Disc Interactive (CD-I) players." >> >>Assuming CD-I gets a revised chipset. NTSC can hardly be considered >>"high quality" when compared to 24-bit megapixel. By the time CD-I >>and Kodak's system hits the market CDTV could already have the DCTV >>set which lets you rival CD-I's image quality. > >True, obviously NTSC can't show all the Photo-CD pixels. But then, >you'd need a workstation to do that, wouldn't you? The majority of >people will be viewing them on their home TV, for which CD-I is ideal. >Kodak's idea is that players will zoom and pan around the image. Exactly my point, the majority of people will be using TV's. Nuff said. HAM pictures dumped to a tv look good. The average consumer isn't going to complain about HAM, he won't even know. >And don't compare DCTV to CD-I's DYUV. They are not the same at all. >DCTV has only a quarter of the color range, only half the horizontal >color resolution, and only half the vertical luminance resolution. >Not to mention that the higher res chipset planes used for DCTV would >further slow down the CDTV cpu, something DYUV does not do on CD-I. DCTV usings 3 or 4 plane hi-res images. 3 hires planes=6 lo-res planes hence DCTV takes the same CPU time as a HAM picture. in 4 plane mode it will eat more CPU, but I doubt it will be much of a loss considering DCTV's purpose. Care to tell me how you calculated DCTV's color range vs CD-I's? Any don't bother comparing it against the 24bit CLUT modes because they are going to get downgraded in the rgb->composite conversion. DC keeps their image format propriertary so I'd like to know how you know this. CDTV isn't automatically a failure because CD-I has better specs, the average joe doesn't even care. Lately, people have had the annoying habit of defining what is "ample and adequate" to exclude the Amiga and CDTV. As far as I know, noone has ever published a rule book stating what is adequate for computers. (I get the picture most people arguing here define their needs like this: Quality of picture needed to represent human flesh=!HAM Quality of resolution needed to do WP/DTP=!whatever_the_amiga_has If the Amiga ever comes standard with a 1024x1024x24 display, I bet someone will state that it's not adequate because some $20000 workstation has something better) I think CD-I is going to have a run for its money. CDTV is out, possibly 8 months before CD-I will hit the market in force. By the time CD-I does hit the market CDTV will have a substantial consumer base. I don't think the interactive video market is a unary market, there is room for more than 1 standard. I wouldn't be surprised if C= adds CD-I compatibility in the future. > - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> BTW, I am dissapointed that neither CDTV nor CD-I live up to their promised features. As you stated kevin, CD-I still doesn't sport real-time 30fps full-screen animation. -- / 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 * /
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.214105.1414@ncsu.edu>, kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >> I have not heard of CD-I even saying they intend to support this. >> Have you heard something I haven't? > >Yes :-) Quoted from the Kodak press release NINE months ago: > > "The Photo CDs will also produce high quality photographic display > on Philips' new Compact Disc Interactive (CD-I) players." That clinches it, then. Both the CD-I and CDTV will support the ability to display Photo CD images. The CD-I systems will display the images at a higher resolution and far better color capability than the CDTV, with standard hardware. The CDTV will not even come close to the capabilities of CD-I in the area of displaying still pictures, and will require extra hardware to display the pictures effectively. > >Moreover, Philips and Sony hold the main patents on CDROM technology. >(That's why we even have a standard cdrom layout in the first place.) >In other words, Kodak and Philips were partners in creating Photo-CD... >and Philips will be building the first dedicated Photo-CD players. Given this, Commodore must have something up their sleeve, or I don't think they would even try to compete directly with CD-I in the area of displaying still pictures. Without some drastic improvements to the CDTV's color capabilities, this is no contest. > >Hope the info 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. / -------------------------------------------------------
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/15/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun15.064022.27467@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Ke >> >>HUH? Of course it has interlaced modes! What do you think a consumer >>interactive-TV unit would output, anyway? VGA frequencies? > > This means still pictures aren't going to look so hot flickering >and all that. YOU WOULD BE SUPRISED HOW GOOD INTERLACED VIDEO LOOKS ON A 27 INCH RCA DIMENSA TELEVISION!!! Looks good on my 20" RCA Dimensia!! I really thought back in 1986 when I first took my Amiga 1000 down to WCS-TV, that it wasn't going to be good enough for anything because I DID not like the flickering...Put the output through the modulator and on the air and PRESTO! The best damn video you have ever seen!! I thought it just might have been the SONY 9" Monitors down there that made it look so damn good, but I left the sucka on, and went home and checked it out. Looked damn good on a piece of shit Mexico built Zenith that was thrown out a year later because the wires all fell apart and decomposed...but thats besides the point, it still looked pretty damn good.. Impressed the teacher enough to press Warren Consolidated Schools to buy 3 Amigas just for Television Production...Guess it helps when the district spokesperson has a vested interest in video on your side...After that, I took my Amiga down to one of the United Cable's government access reps, and they bought a couple as well...and this was before the Amiga had its foot down as a "video" computer. It was just a gee whiz type of thing then...and only that ProVideo was avaiable then... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/15/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > I think CD-I is going to have a run for its money. CDTV is out, possibly >8 months before CD-I will hit the market in force. By the time >CD-I does hit the market CDTV will have a substantial consumer base. >I don't think the interactive video market is a unary market, there is >room for more than 1 standard. I wouldn't be surprised if C= adds >CD-I compatibility in the future. Plus with Personal Computers getting DV-I, you won't see many IBMers buying either system. And the fact that a CDTV player will be avaiable for the Amiga 500 will really give more promise to the software companies looking to develop for either system. We all know alot of A500 owners are game mongers. And I bet Commodore has stats as large as a phone book to back this assumption up. Why else would they have come out with this in the first place?! > >> - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> > >BTW, I am dissapointed that neither CDTV nor CD-I live up to their >promised features. As you stated kevin, CD-I still doesn't sport >real-time 30fps full-screen animation. From the article I have in my hand now, this is true. Here's a direct quote: "The first home-use players are expected from Magnavox and Philips this fall. Full-motion video, it is understood, to be added at a later date." Going on in the article, it says that NEC and Sony are developing systems of their OWN(not CD-I) that should be out in two years. Then it will be a decision of who has more software avaiable, and whats cheaper. And can you see the video mongers get a hold of this for genlocking? You could buy a CD with a million different fonts on it! -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun15.120756.17928@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > That clinches it, then. Both the CD-I and CDTV will support the >ability to display Photo CD images. The CD-I systems will display >the images at a higher resolution and far better color capability >than the CDTV, with standard hardware. The CDTV will not even come >close to the capabilities of CD-I in the area of displaying still >pictures, and will require extra hardware to display the pictures >effectively. > True, but so what? Kodak Photo CDs are hardly the biggest selling point of either of these machines. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/16/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >> True, obviously NTSC can't show all the Photo-CD pixels. But then, >> you'd need a workstation to do that, wouldn't you? The majority of >> people will be viewing them on their home TV, for which CD-I is ideal. > > Exactly my point, the majority of people will be using TV's. Nuff said. > HAM pictures dumped to a tv look good. The average consumer isn't going > to complain about HAM, he won't even know. I won't argue that for _certain_ pictures, this can be true. But for all? Hardly. Even CBM doesn't agree with you, or else they wouldn't be talking about including an extra cost video card for Photo CD customers. Or do you also think that _they're_ mistaken about this good (I think) plan? > Care to tell me how you calculated DCTV's color range vs CD-I's? [..] > DC keeps their image format propriertary so I'd like to know how you > know this. By doing my homework, Ray :-). Instead of posting immediate replies, I first always spend several hours researching the hardest facts available. In this case, the best data came from a file on CIS from someone who had probed into DCTV and posted its image format and output capabilities. > CDTV isn't automatically a failure because CD-I has better specs, > the average joe doesn't even care. Lately, people have had the > annoying habit of defining what is "ample and adequate" to exclude > the Amiga and CDTV. As far as I know, noone has ever published a > rule book stating what is adequate for computers. [ and so on ] It's just as annoying in my book to hear some people define "adequate" as "whatever the Amiga currently displays", or that Joe Blow can't tell the difference between minimum x colors and maximum y colors on a TV. Get a clue, Ray! For instance, there are plenty of published graphics "rule books" about how many grey levels are required for "adequate" viewing of a B&W photograph. Common sense and experience come into play here too. Speaking of which, I can't believe you compared freezeframe on a slutty VHS tape recorder to digital video NTSC output; nor that you also declared that interlaced NTSC always flickers. What planet do you live on, guy? Come down to earth and I'll show you plenty of crisp, clear, digitized photos displayed on an interlaced output. And they don't flicker. > I don't think the interactive video market is a unary market, there is > room for more than 1 standard. I wouldn't be surprised if C= adds > CD-I compatibility in the future. Here you may be right. Time will tell. - kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun14.174930.28222@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1349@cbmger.UUCP>, peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: > > Give me a break, again! I have been using Amigas longer than many of >the people at Commodore, You don't mean me, do you? (Amiga user since 1985) > True, the Amiga can display up to 4096 colors >at once. However, none of the Amigas graphics modes are capable of going >beyond 12-bit color, in any resolution. > > When you are talking about photgraphs, the number of shades of each >color that you have in the color palette is *FAR* more important than the >number of total colors that you can display at once. I don't buy that. You see, for my eyes, these 4096 simultaneous colors actually do, and also with shades of skin tones I have no problem. You really should look at those pictures in the World Vista Atlas. > See above. On the Amiga, the theoretical best that you could ever >do is 12-bit color. This compares to the CD-I systems, which have >24-bit palettes and can display 15-bits of color at once (I think). >If pictures of people look far better on systems with 8-bit color than ^^ yeah! But they don't! >on an Amiga,you can be pretty damn confident that the CD-I systems -- >which will make even the systems with 8-bit color look pretty lame -- >will make the Amiga look very silly. I'm not shivering. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun17.180646.24614@wehi.dn.mu.oz> baxter_a@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >In article <1991Jun12.192948.20028@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> One new feature, CDXL, will let developers display video images >> from a CD-ROM disk on screen. Limited to images covering about one >> third of the screen... >> CDXL can display about 12 frames per second > >Do I get this right? > >106 x 200 pixels at 6 bits at 12 fps? > >Is that supposed to be an achievement? > >Regards Alan The limitation is the speed of the CD. Without compression that is about its limit. -- 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."
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun16.130419.21035@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>> >>>> [CDTV is great, CD-I is greater, CDTV is greater than greater, etc.] Sigh. CDTV?? CD-I?? These are BOTH very WIMPY ideas. If you want to see a REAL innovation, check out the LATEST in the series of similarly-named, 4-letter video products: Introducing... CBTV! Yes, CBTV! Now, you might think that the "CB" stands for "Citizen's Band", as in "CB radio". After all, it makes a lot of sense to integrate a television set with a CB. It would certainly find its way into 99% of people's homes. (Mainly because we'd sneak in at night and put it there.) But that's NOT what "CBTV" stands for!! The REAL words are (you knew this was coming, didn't you...): COMPACT BLAZEMONGER TERROR and VIOLENCE That's right! CBTV is the ULTIMATE ULTIMATE video game machine!! Hidden inside its miniscule frame (2" x 1" x 1"), CBTV contains SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION of the most HORRIFYING villains, creatures, aliens, mutants, mechanized death machines, monster trucks ("...are coming, coming, COMING!"), Atari salespeople, and other EVIL, SLIME-DRIPPING ARCANE FORCES. And all that stands between them and TOTAL WORLD CONQUEST is... YOU, and your trusty 0.25" joystick! You thought BLAZEMONGER was fast, eh?? Well, you ain't seen NOTHING yet! On the CBTV custom hardware, the images will RIP past your eyes so fast that you'll think that YOU are actually moving! In fact, you WILL be moving, thanks to CBTV's built-in ULTRA-POWERFUL magnet that will carry your body toward the nearest metal object at LIGHTNING SPEED! Bang on the hardware??? OF COURSE!! CBTV has not ten, not twenty, but FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND 128-BIT DMA HARDWARE REGISTERS ready to be POKED... and poked HARD!! SLAMMED, actually, right against the WALL! Pesky registers. They get what they deserve. So, as you can see, all those silly CVTD (or whatever they're called this week) devices are just no comparison. Junk 'em, that's what I say. Incidentally, if anybody is interested in becoming a CBTV developer, send e-mail to BLAZEMONGER@blazemonger.blazemonger.blazemonger.blazemonger. Include your name, address, telephone number, date of birth, number of speeding tickets received, number of speeding tickets OUTRUN, number of calluses on your joystick finger, and a brief history of any violent activity in yourself or close family members, Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/18/91)
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >In article <1991Jun16.130419.21035@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >>rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >[CDTV is great, CD-I is greater, CDTV is greater than greater, etc.] > Sigh. > CDTV?? CD-I?? These are BOTH very WIMPY ideas. If you want to see >a REAL innovation, check out the LATEST in the series of similarly-named, >4-letter video products: > Introducing... CBTV! > COMPACT > BLAZEMONGER > TERROR and > VIOLENCE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! <ROFL> Ah me. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kawai@gssm.otsuka.tsukuba.ac.jp (Tadahiko Kawai) (06/19/91)
q
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (06/21/91)
In article <2371@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: >In article <1991Jun12.205030.4401@news.iastate.edu| taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > >| Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? If so, I don't >|know what Commodore is waiting for. > >I've heard conflicting stories on this. Anyone know for sure whether or not >MPEG actually is completed? > > MPEG is not complete yet. I don't believe JPEG is even complete yet. PARTS of JPEG have been signed off on, but not the complete standard. Unless this has happened recently. I have not heard any word back from the JPEG committee yet. -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, I loved the peace and solitude | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and so much, I invited my friends. | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun14.214206.1510@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >>>> Wasn't the MPEG standard completed last December? >>> No, it's not yet completed. >> At least two who should know about such things have said themselves that >> there are conflicting reports about MPEG's completeness. > >The conflicting reports were real enough. I remember saving off a news >report saying the audio portion was finished last September. But don't >listen to us... what we need is someone who _does_ know for sure :-) > >In any case, I asked someone whom *I* thought would know <chuckle>, and >was told that of the three MPEG sections (video, audio, system integration), >only the video is done. And that's the best I could find out so far. > The JPEG spec has been frozen but the final draft circulating has not been signed off yet. MPEG has not been finalized. -Jerry -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, I loved the peace and solitude | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and so much, I invited my friends. | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
rehrauer@apollo.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun14.181002.28902@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > I will say this again, in a different way: nless Commodore drastically >improves the CDTV's color capabilities by time the Photo-CD systems become >available, Commodore will be laughed out of the country. Commodore has >a chance of beating the CD-I systems in the area of animation, but they >do not have a ghost of a chance of beating them in the area of still >pictures. The CDTV's pseudo-12-bit graphics pale against the 15/24-bit >graphics of the CD-I systems. Have you seen both systems in action? I have seen neither, myself, and I have to wonder whether you're not [a] chasing a specsmanship herring, and [b] overestimating the American consumer's willingness to pay for video quality. If CDTV is at all able to win a significant early market share, I'd say picture quality considerations, for 95+ percent of prospective CD-I / CDTV buyers, is a non-issue; price will talk louder. -- "Did you check the car to see if it's okay for | Steve Rehrauer a long trip, Sam?" "Well, the wheels are still | rehrauer@apollo.hp.com on... and here's the key... Yep, everything | Hewlett-Packard checks out!" -- Freelance Police | MA Languages Lab
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/28/91)
rehrauer@apollo.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) writes: >In article <1991Jun14.181002.28902@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu >> I will say this again, in a different way: nless Commodore drastically >>improves the CDTV's color capabilities by time the Photo-CD systems become >>available, Commodore will be laughed out of the country. Commodore has >>a chance of beating the CD-I systems in the area of animation, but they >>do not have a ghost of a chance of beating them in the area of still >>pictures. The CDTV's pseudo-12-bit graphics pale against the 15/24-bit >>graphics of the CD-I systems. > >Have you seen both systems in action? I have seen neither, myself, and I >have to wonder whether you're not [a] chasing a specsmanship herring, and >[b] overestimating the American consumer's willingness to pay for video >quality. If CDTV is at all able to win a significant early market share, >I'd say picture quality considerations, for 95+ percent of prospective >CD-I / CDTV buyers, is a non-issue; price will talk louder. Some people just give the American consumer too much credit. Most people buy what others buy, so whatever has the price advantage in the beginning and sells more, will have a major head start over anything else that comes later.. How else can you explain that Atari was still selling 2600's well into 1989? Any other ideas on how VHS is still outselling laserdisc players...AM stereo has never caught on...etc...Better doesn't sell when something cheaper is "good enough"...2400 baud modems are still selling quite well when the $400 V.32 modems are avaiable(And US Robotics HST still outnumbers V.32 modems in this area code 15 to 1, even though V.32 is full duplex and now somewhat cheaper if you shop around) -- C-UseNet V0.42f Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes, keep this is mind.
arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) (06/29/91)
My point exactly.. Bob The Consumer has no IDEA what the difference between 12 and 24 bit is. Besides, ive seen 12-bit HAM images (CDTV, inotherwords) that looked BETTER than some 24-bit pictures ive seen. Bob The Consumer just wants a multimedia box. Sure, he thought of 24-bit will give some of them a woody, but only a very VERY small minority. "Think John Hinkley would be impressed if Reagan shot Jodie Foster?" - Me =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Nothin like a good single-tasking, single-processor based beep-box like an IBM to liven things up 'round the office! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Direct all bomb threats and assorted hate-mail to arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us
barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) (06/30/91)
In article <arctngnt.1321@amiganet.chi.il.us> arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us (Bowie J Poag) writes: > > >My point exactly.. Bob The Consumer has no IDEA what the difference between >12 and 24 bit is. > > >Besides, ive seen 12-bit HAM images (CDTV, inotherwords) that looked BETTER >than some 24-bit pictures ive seen. You are comparing highly-optimized 12-bit pictures to generic 24-bit pictures, which isn't at all fair. With the Amiga's pseudo-12-bit color, in order to get good results you have to pick the picture well and use a very sophisticated color-processing algorithm. With a pseudo-24-bit color box (like the CD-I machines), you can pick any old picture, convert it with any crude processing algorithm, and the results will be very spectacular. Remember, 24-bit is a superset of 12-bit. This means that the CD-I machines (for instance) can display color at least as well as an Amiga. They can spectacularly blow the Amiga away if you start using sophisticated processing algorithms on CD-I as well. > >Bob The Consumer just wants a multimedia box. Sure, he thought of 24-bit will >give some of them a woody, but only a very VERY small minority. Bob the Consumer won't know what 12-bit and 24-bit mean. However, Bob the Consumer does have *EYES* and will be able to tell the differences between the 24-bit CD-I and the inferior 12-bit CDTV/Amiga when the two are shown next to each other. BTW, it amazes me how much Amiga users are suddenly comfortable with inferior technology. Way back when the Amiga was brand-new, the attitudes of MAC people -- that they would accept inferior technology simply because it came from Apple -- drove Amiga users mad. Now, the Amiga users are accepting inferior Amiga technology simply it is from Commodore. > >"Think John Hinkley would be impressed if Reagan shot Jodie Foster?" - Me >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Nothin like a good single-tasking, single-processor based beep-box like an IBM >to liven things up 'round the office! >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Direct all bomb threats and assorted hate-mail to arctngnt@amiganet.chi.il.us ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (07/01/91)
From article <1991Jun30.092929.22762@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): > Remember, 24-bit is a superset of 12-bit. This means that the CD-I > machines (for instance) can display color at least as well as an Amiga. > They can spectacularly blow the Amiga away if you start using sophisticated > processing algorithms on CD-I as well. Neither graphic art, nor the human eye, is as linear as you think. And this IS ntsc we're talking about. DCTV isn't 24bit, it's only got about 4 mil onscreen, and then the luminance transitions are faster than the actual color transitions. And it would probably look better than a 24bit RGB, simply because it's pure NTSC. The bits aren't there, but you see my point. It's not linear. > Bob the Consumer won't know what 12-bit and 24-bit mean. However, Bob > the Consumer does have *EYES* and will be able to tell the differences > between the 24-bit CD-I and the inferior 12-bit CDTV/Amiga when the two > are shown next to each other. Not on your average TV... And CDTV looks better than I thought it would. Far better. I had expected Amiga graphics, and they didn't look like Amiga graphics. I can't explain it, but they didn't seem the same. It was on a TV I was viewing it on, and it did look good. Have you ever seen CDTV? No. :-) > BTW, it amazes me how much Amiga users are suddenly comfortable with > inferior technology. Way back when the Amiga was brand-new, the attitudes > of MAC people -- that they would accept inferior technology simply because > it came from Apple -- drove Amiga users mad. Now, the Amiga users are > accepting inferior Amiga technology simply it is from Commodore. Okay. Now you can hold on. Who the hell ever said they were COMFORTABLE???? I'd love 8bit graphics. I don't want a 24bit graphic chipset. It's a bad idea. That's for graphic boards to handle, and for DIG to deal with, IMHO. What is needed now is an 8bit graphic chipset to compare directly with VGA. Argh. And what the hell do you want me to do? Design my own chipset? Pay me, and I will. :) I can see using a nice 4x4x4 tower as my new Denise. :D Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) (07/01/91)
In article <13636@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <1991Jun30.092929.22762@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): >> BTW, it amazes me how much Amiga users are suddenly comfortable with >> inferior technology. Way back when the Amiga was brand-new, the attitudes >> of MAC people -- that they would accept inferior technology simply because >> it came from Apple -- drove Amiga users mad. Now, the Amiga users are >> accepting inferior Amiga technology simply it is from Commodore. > >Okay. Now you can hold on. Who the hell ever said they were >COMFORTABLE???? I'd love 8bit graphics. I don't want a 24bit graphic >chipset. It's a bad idea. That's for graphic boards to handle, and >for DIG to deal with, IMHO. What is needed now is an 8bit graphic >chipset to compare directly with VGA. Argh. You said you are comfortable with inferior technology. By saying that you feel that a chipset with 24-bit color is a bad idea, you are, in effect, saying that you are comfortable with the CDTV having inferior technology. DIG will *NEVER* benefit the CDTV. For the CDTV to succeed against CD-I in the long run, it needs a totally new chipset with 24-bit color. > >Greg > >-- >Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" >LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." >Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled >with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba -- -------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: taab5@isuvax.bitnet / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: barrett@iastate.edu / -------------------------------------------------------
barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) (07/01/91)
In article <13636@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >Okay. Now you can hold on. Who the hell ever said they were >COMFORTABLE???? I'd love 8bit graphics. I don't want a 24bit graphic >chipset. It's a bad idea. That's for graphic boards to handle, and >for DIG to deal with, IMHO. What is needed now is an 8bit graphic >chipset to compare directly with VGA. Argh. > One more thought... it would be very typical for Commodore to finally adopt 8-bit color, right when 8-bit color is obsolete. Face it, 8-bit color is fast becoming obsolete, and all companies are moving past 8-bit to higher color capabilities. CD-I is 24-bit, Apple has 24-bit video cards for the MAC and one system with 15-bit color practically built-in (on the LC, all the hardware for 15-bit color is there, except for the memory). VGA is also moving past 8-bit color, as the new VEGA standard supports 15-bit color. Yesterday's technology, ad infinitum... >Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" >LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." >Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled >with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba -- -------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: taab5@isuvax.bitnet / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: barrett@iastate.edu / -------------------------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.205059.4196@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) writes: >In article <13636@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>From article <1991Jun30.092929.22762@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): >>> BTW, it amazes me how much Amiga users are suddenly comfortable with >>> inferior technology. Way back when the Amiga was brand-new, the attitudes >>> of MAC people -- that they would accept inferior technology simply because >>> it came from Apple -- drove Amiga users mad. Now, the Amiga users are >>> accepting inferior Amiga technology simply it is from Commodore. >> >>Okay. Now you can hold on. Who the hell ever said they were >>COMFORTABLE???? I'd love 8bit graphics. I don't want a 24bit graphic >>chipset. It's a bad idea. That's for graphic boards to handle, and >>for DIG to deal with, IMHO. What is needed now is an 8bit graphic >>chipset to compare directly with VGA. Argh. > > You said you are comfortable with inferior technology. By saying that >you feel that a chipset with 24-bit color is a bad idea, you are, in effect, >saying that you are comfortable with the CDTV having inferior technology. >DIG will *NEVER* benefit the CDTV. For the CDTV to succeed against CD-I >in the long run, it needs a totally new chipset with 24-bit color. > Commodore has, so far, managed to keep the high-end and low-end pretty tightly coupled, that is to say upwardly compatible. It seems like we've come to the point where what is best for the high-end is not best for the low-end. Ideally a new chip set AND DIG will come out, but realistically one will get more priority than the other (jeesh, how can CBM make anything with 1/20 the budget of Apple. Let's all give up. 8) A new chip set could be designed for the low-end machines (read games) that would give great animation and a much larger number of colors, without much resolution gain. Then DIG will be essential for the high-end Amiga video work, but realistically less useful for the A500. It'll be interesting to see how the efforts turn out. It appears that both are being worked on. Will the new chip set be designed more for video work or more for games, or perhaps both? Hopefully I'll find out in September at DevCon. 8-) -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.205817.4347@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) writes: >In article <13636@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>Okay. Now you can hold on. Who the hell ever said they were >>COMFORTABLE???? I'd love 8bit graphics. I don't want a 24bit graphic >>chipset. It's a bad idea. That's for graphic boards to handle, and >>for DIG to deal with, IMHO. What is needed now is an 8bit graphic >>chipset to compare directly with VGA. Argh. >> > One more thought... it would be very typical for Commodore to finally >adopt 8-bit color, right when 8-bit color is obsolete. Face it, 8-bit >color is fast becoming obsolete, and all companies are moving past 8-bit >to higher color capabilities. CD-I is 24-bit, Apple has 24-bit video >cards for the MAC and one system with 15-bit color practically built-in >(on the LC, all the hardware for 15-bit color is there, except for the >memory). VGA is also moving past 8-bit color, as the new VEGA standard >supports 15-bit color. > Obsolete for what purpose? Video work? Games? Productivity? Those are three different markets with three different needs. Admittedly, the Amiga's graphics are beginning to lag. But you've already just said that if Commodore does what the productivity market may need (8 bit, with perhaps 24 bit palette), you'll trash them anyway. It seems like unless they satisfy all three criteria you will yell at them for not being so good in the others. Productivity needs (spreadsheets, databases, etc.) will not move past a 1Kx1K 16 color need for quite a while. Maybe more colors will be useful. But then again, they can get 1Kx1K with 4 colors (the same as that great NeXT) right now. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (07/01/91)
From article <1991Jun30.205059.4196@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): > You said you are comfortable with inferior technology. By saying that > you feel that a chipset with 24-bit color is a bad idea, you are, in effect, > saying that you are comfortable with the CDTV having inferior technology. That's the biggest crock of shit I've heard today. Don't put words into my mouth, and DON'T excuse the language. Think. Think of a ham using 8 bits instead of 6, and you'll have more than enough of what you need for NTSC. Simulated 24bit is all that's necessary for NTSC. More is nice, but Simulated is enough. > DIG will *NEVER* benefit the CDTV. For the CDTV to succeed against CD-I > in the long run, it needs a totally new chipset with 24-bit color. Then again, CDTV's and Amigas are different things. A 24bit chipset will be expensive. That should be painfully obvious. So obviously, it isn't going to go into something that's meant to reach low-end consumers eventually. 8bit with 15/16bit ham would be fine & dandy for ntsc. I wouldn't settle for less than 24bit as RGB goes, but that wouldn't be CDTV, would it? Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.205817.4347@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) writes: >In article <13636@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>Okay. Now you can hold on. Who the hell ever said they were >>COMFORTABLE???? I'd love 8bit graphics. I don't want a 24bit graphic >>chipset. It's a bad idea. That's for graphic boards to handle, and >>for DIG to deal with, IMHO. What is needed now is an 8bit graphic >>chipset to compare directly with VGA. Argh. >> > One more thought... it would be very typical for Commodore to finally >adopt 8-bit color, right when 8-bit color is obsolete. Face it, 8-bit >color is fast becoming obsolete, and all companies are moving past 8-bit Marc, will you "make up your own mind"!. First you 8bit color, then you don't, then you want DIG, then you dont, you're beginning to become a whiner. J Townsend just posted a list of numerous 24bit color cards for the Amiga, what's you point? These cards are expensive. If you want to move 640x480x24 (almost one megabyte) of data around, you need a co-processor. If C= came out with a 1024x1024x24 display tommorow for $500 and it didn't have some kind of fast datamover onboard I would not buy it. >to higher color capabilities. CD-I is 24-bit, Apple has 24-bit video Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong, but CD-I has a 24bit palette, but it does not display 24bits per pixel. (well, it certainly doesn't on TV!) >cards for the MAC and one system with 15-bit color practically built-in >(on the LC, all the hardware for 15-bit color is there, except for the >memory). VGA is also moving past 8-bit color, as the new VEGA standard >supports 15-bit color. Sure, does the VEGA standard require a blitter onbiard? if it doesn't those sure will make nice still pictures. > Yesterday's technology, ad infinitum... Marc, what do you want from Commodore? Do you want a new Amiga model with an 8bit chipset that can animate? Do you want a 24bit chipset? Do you want the Amiga to be cheap or expensive? Do you want DIG with high end RISC boards? A few days ago you say "C= needs a new 8bit chipset for A500 machines." Now you're saying 24bit. You are not going to sell a machine with built in 24bits per pixel graphics for under $500. >>Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" >>LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." >>Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled >>with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba > > >-- > -------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: taab5@isuvax.bitnet / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: barrett@iastate.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 * /
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (07/01/91)
From article <1991Jun30.205817.4347@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): > One more thought... it would be very typical for Commodore to finally > adopt 8-bit color, right when 8-bit color is obsolete. Face it, 8-bit > color is fast becoming obsolete, and all companies are moving past 8-bit > to higher color capabilities. CD-I is 24-bit, Apple has 24-bit video > cards for the MAC and one system with 15-bit color practically built-in > (on the LC, all the hardware for 15-bit color is there, except for the > memory). VGA is also moving past 8-bit color, as the new VEGA standard > supports 15-bit color. My, my, how shallow of you. Firstly, maybe 8-bit color is getting a little old, but n-buffered 8 bit isn't, and neither would 15-bit ham anims. The difference with the mac is that it's DIGged up already, so it doesn't matter what kind of graphics you use. The more, the better. And there are applications that support 24bit dig on the mac. That's it. One evolutionary step away. And frankly, the Mac doesn't have animation in 24-bit, or even a good 8-bit card, built onto any of their macs. You're better of 3rd party. Not even Apple expects its customers to look to Apple for everything. Yes, they've got some nice stuff, but 3rd party is always better. The difference is the support you get for certain things. DIG is already there. A 3rd party made VM, and then years later the OS got it. A 3rd party made outline font technology, and then years later the OS got it. That's the macintosh way. :) But seriously. The evolutionary features aren't all that far away, and we'll be caught up to standards soon enough. Nobody can offer near-24bit quality animations like us, either. DCTV, Ham-E, and ColorBurst all go a long, long way towards revolutionary products. Hell, CD-I gets it's 15 bit graphics mode in a way similar to DCTV. Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.223505.16971@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Marc, what do you want from Commodore? OK, I'll tell you exactly what I want from Commodore. I want a new 32-bit chipset that is powerful enough to justify the more than 7-year gap between it's introduction and the introduction of the original chipset. This new chipset must have enough overall capability to allow a new CDTV system using it to emulate CD-I. As for features, I want an expanded Copper (more instructions and flexibility), multiple blitters (at least four, preferably more), a 24-bit palette, and the ability to display 24-bit color at a resolution of 640x400. All existing resolution modes should have expanded color capabilities, including the SuperHiRes and Productivity modes. Do you want a new Amiga >model with an 8bit chipset that can animate? I want a 24-bit chipset that can animate (with multiple blitters). >Do you want a 24bit >chipset? Do you want the Amiga to be cheap or expensive? In order for it to be used in a new CDTV, it had better be cheap. Commodore has to get a decent chipset into that thing as soon as possible, so that Commodore can make the CDTV fully compatible with CD-I. I also want the A500 to finally get improved capabilities as well, using the same improved chipset that should go into CDTV. Did you realize that there are now dedicated game machines with color capabilities better than the CDTV, A500, and A3000? >Do you want DIG >with high end RISC boards? No I don't. For now, I am more concerned with the low-end. I don't like there being dedicated game systems with color capabilities vastly better than the A500 and CDTV. Both systems need a new chipset FAST. > A few days ago you say "C= needs a new 8bit chipset for A500 >machines." Now you're saying 24bit. You are not going to sell >a machine with built in 24bits per pixel graphics for under $500. I changed my mind about 8-bit color after I realized that there are already dedicated game systems with 15-bits of color. If any new chipsets are limited to 8-bits of color, I will never forgive Commodore for it, because 8-bit color is already fast becoming history. >-- >/ 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 * / > -- -------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: taab5@isuvax.bitnet / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: barrett@iastate.edu / -------------------------------------------------------
barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) (07/01/91)
In article <13647@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <1991Jun30.205817.4347@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): > >My, my, how shallow of you. Firstly, maybe 8-bit color is getting a >little old, but n-buffered 8 bit isn't, and neither would 15-bit ham >anims. The difference with the mac is that it's DIGged up already, so >it doesn't matter what kind of graphics you use. The more, the >better. And there are applications that support 24bit dig on the mac. >That's it. One evolutionary step away. And frankly, the Mac doesn't >have animation in 24-bit, or even a good 8-bit card, built onto any of >their macs. You're better of 3rd party. That is a pack of lies straight out of hell. For one thing, the MAC IIci, IIsi, and LC all have VERY nice 8-bit graphic cards built-in. I don't see how you can say that the cards aren't any good, as the graphics are VERY sharp and vibrant on the Apple color monitors. Also, Apple currently produces the 8/24GC graphics card which does do impressive animations in full 24-bit color on a 640x480 non-interlaced display. >Hell, CD-I gets it's >15 bit graphics mode in a way similar to DCTV. Similar, but better. First, CD-I had DYUV first. Secondly, on the CD-I machines, DYUV can be combined with other graphics modes, to produce striking effects. I think Mr. Darling once mentioned something about how ieasy it would be to produce a 256,000-color background with a 32,000- color animation overlaid, along with transparency effects to boot. This is not possible with DCTV, or any of the other Amiga third-party products for that matter. > >Greg >-- >Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" >LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." >Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled >with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba -- -------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: taab5@isuvax.bitnet / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: barrett@iastate.edu / -------------------------------------------------------
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (07/01/91)
I imagine I won't be the only one responding to this, oh well. In article <1991Jun30.232109.6446@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) writes: >In article <1991Jun30.223505.16971@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> Marc, what do you want from Commodore? > > OK, I'll tell you exactly what I want from Commodore. I want a new >32-bit chipset that is powerful enough to justify the more than 7-year >gap between it's introduction and the introduction of the original chipset. Gee, that sounds reasonable. So would I. Sounds good so far. >This new chipset must have enough overall capability to allow a new CDTV >system using it to emulate CD-I. Yep, it sure should. OR Cmdre should have a hardware addon specific to CDTV that does the same thing. Makes total sense, yep. > As for features, I want an expanded Copper (more instructions and >flexibility), multiple blitters (at least four, preferably more), a Why? Lessee, I could understand adding arbitrary rotate/scale tech. to sprites (ala LYNX), and maybe some pixmap modes to Denise, but the Copper? FOUR blitters? What's the point? Only one can be on the bus at a time. It would be nice if it could automatically read its instructions off a cache memory so that Blitter set up times were minimized, maybe.... >24-bit palette, and the ability to display 24-bit color at a resolution >of 640x400. All existing resolution modes should have expanded color >capabilities, including the SuperHiRes and Productivity modes. Okay, reality time here. To stay within even *available* RAM access times, we'd have to have a very complicated pipe scheme and some heavy duty cache, OR we'd need a 64 bit chipset to get what you want. Do the math Marc, it's simple, really. Remember with all this Copper magic, VRAM is not a real option. > I want a 24-bit chipset that can animate (with multiple blitters). Okay, so you're going to pay for it, right? > In order for it to be used in a new CDTV, it had better be cheap. Okay, so you aren't to pay for it.... >>Do you want DIG >>with high end RISC boards? > No I don't. For now, I am more concerned with the low-end. I don't ...and you don't want anyone else to pay for it. In addition you will trust Cmdre to come up with a solution to suit everyone, so DIG is completely out of the question? Read the summary --- GET A CLUE! >Commodore has to get a decent chipset into that thing as soon as possible, >so that Commodore can make the CDTV fully compatible with CD-I. I also They don't have to make the chipset better for that, they need something specifically for the CDTV. Who cares what *that* looks like, as long as it's cheap and good enough for TV. We are talking about NTSC, right? Never Twice the Same Color? >want the A500 to finally get improved capabilities as well, using the >same improved chipset that should go into CDTV. Did you realize that >there are now dedicated game machines with color capabilities better than >the CDTV, A500, and A3000? Yes, I do. Funny how either they all run DOS, or they're out of my price range. Color does NOT make the machine. It didn't make it when the Amiga came out, and it won't make a big diff. now. I *do* agree with you that we need a better chipset. Cmdre has already all but said they're creating one. Neither of us works for Cmdre. Figure it out. >like there being dedicated game systems with color capabilities vastly >better than the A500 and CDTV. Both systems need a new chipset FAST. Quick: why fast? >> A few days ago you say "C= needs a new 8bit chipset for A500 >>machines." Now you're saying 24bit. You are not going to sell >>a machine with built in 24bits per pixel graphics for under $500. > > I changed my mind about 8-bit color after I realized that there are >already dedicated game systems with 15-bits of color. If any new chipsets >are limited to 8-bits of color, I will never forgive Commodore for it, >because 8-bit color is already fast becoming history. You seem to change your mind all the time. As long as that's the case, mind being brainwashed? You ever seen a Personal IRIS? You know, 24 bits color, z-buffer, gouraud shading and hardware lighting? I have. I've programmed it to animate, mind if I tell you what I found? We got the IRIS to do about 150 gouraud shaded polygon fills about five frames a second. [It was an older model] Does that meet your specs? It doesn't seem to. That machine is *already* a "hack" and costs about $20,000. Like dude, get a clue. While color wasn't hot, it was easy to be competitive. Color was NOT hot in the PC world about '85, does it come as any surprise that a computer could compete? Interestingly, it was the Amiga rather than the Mindset that made it. Now everyone and their dog is doing color. We need to be *adequate* and find an area which no on else is competing in. Personally, I dream Cmdre surprises us all, develops their own 35ns RAM, a 64bit chipset, and their own RISC processor that does realtime phong shading with BSPtree shadowing algorithms, and B-spline animation. But see, I wake up in the morning. And the question is: Do you? David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.232109.6446@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) writes: > In order for it to be used in a new CDTV, it had better be cheap. >Commodore has to get a decent chipset into that thing as soon as possible, >so that Commodore can make the CDTV fully compatible with CD-I. I also >want the A500 to finally get improved capabilities as well, using the >same improved chipset that should go into CDTV. Did you realize that >there are now dedicated game machines with color capabilities better than >the CDTV, A500, and A3000? > Let me get this straight: you want (as you said in the part I cut, sorry) four blitters and 640x400 with 24 bit planes of resolution. Now you say you want this cheap, cheap enough to be put in a (well priced) CDTV. I know it for certain now. You are TRULY nuts. You keep harping back to CD-I and its wonderful DYUV graphics mode (or whatever that wierd mode is 8). Now, a question: You can show still images, or precomputed (digitized) anims, but can you interactively write to it, in the sense of doing a game with it? <Kevin??> Kinda like the problems with DCTV. The code to work with it in the sense of a game must be VERY convoluted. >>Do you want DIG >>with high end RISC boards? > > No I don't. For now, I am more concerned with the low-end. I don't >like there being dedicated game systems with color capabilities vastly >better than the A500 and CDTV. Both systems need a new chipset FAST. > Then what are you harping about 24 bit planes for? 24 bit palette, yes. 24 bit planes? For a game machine? -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (07/01/91)
From article <1991Jun30.233052.6568@news.iastate.edu>, by barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N): > That is a pack of lies straight out of hell. For one thing, the > MAC IIci, IIsi, and LC all have VERY nice 8-bit graphic cards built-in. No, they don't. They have nice output, but the way they get there is bad. Almost any 8-bit nubus card can beat the pants off of them. That's pretty much common knowledge. The cards built onto the motherboards stink. > I don't see how you can say that the cards aren't any good, as the graphics > are VERY sharp and vibrant on the Apple color monitors. Also, Apple Fine and dandy, yes. But the way they get there sucks. Slower than almost any other card out there. > currently produces the 8/24GC graphics card which does do impressive > animations in full 24-bit color on a 640x480 non-interlaced display. And how much would that be??? Not the cost of a single chip, that's damned sure. You say you want "cheap 24-bit graphics". Don't expect it to cost less than it does on any other platform. What exactly is your idea of cheap? 600 bucks???? That would be about how much it would cost, bare minimum. Let's take a peek at reality and how much can actually be put onto a chip. Are 24bit graphics cards one chip? Not exactly. > Similar, but better. First, CD-I had DYUV first. Secondly, on the > CD-I machines, DYUV can be combined with other graphics modes, to produce > striking effects. I think Mr. Darling once mentioned something about how Playfields, my friend, it's called playfields. And I suppose that if the chipset itself supported it, it would be possible. But I don't expect to see DYUV chipset. Probably ham, more likely. DYUV is extra chips, and that would mean a redesign, and a loss of compatibility, and therefore less market penetration, resulting in software that probably wouldn't support it. It's got to fit on one chip, don't forget. Everything you want, on one chip. Otherwise, it's not a direct replacement, and it will be an add on card. And for that, you'll need DIG, and chips on that card that can replicate the current graphics modes, and that would be an ideal situation. DIG is important in that respect, because you wouldn't be able to drop 4 blitters into an amiga now. And the cost of it would be pretty damned expensive, not to mention the probable fact that they'd have to be designed to work together... > ieasy it would be to produce a 256,000-color background with a 32,000- > color animation overlaid, along with transparency effects to boot. This > is not possible with DCTV, or any of the other Amiga third-party products > for that matter. ColorBurst can handle it, only in real 24-bit RGB. Once it's out, it has planned software support in the productivity realm. Something like ColorBurst can do MORE than what the CD-I stuff is. And it would be in RGB, not DYUV. Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.092929.22762@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Barrett Marc N) writes: > BTW, it amazes me how much Amiga users are suddenly comfortable with > inferior technology. Where? The technology that led me to buy the Amiga, the system software, is still at least two years ahead of IBM or Apple. Color is a frill. A real operating system is a necessity. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (07/01/91)
Responding to the following: :-) > In order for it to be used in a new CDTV, it had better be cheap. >Commodore has to get a decent chipset into that thing as soon as possible, >so that Commodore can make the CDTV fully compatible with CD-I. I also >want the A500 to finally get improved capabilities as well, using the >same improved chipset that should go into CDTV. Did you realize that >there are now dedicated game machines with color capabilities better than >the CDTV, A500, and A3000? > I have the best solution to making CDTV compat with CD-I. Just buy the CD-I chips. No doubt they will be mass produced. Why reinvent the wheel? The added bonus would be that with CDTV you can play all the CD-I software plus all of the Amiga's great games. Something lost about today's games is that they are all action and little content. Lemmings, Populus, Simcity, Tetris (and classic games like MULE!) provide far more hours of playability than BlastEvery24bitObjectOnThisScreenCauseIt LooksCoolAndCostsAFortune v2.0. You walk into the arcades nowadays and 80% of the games are the same plot. Blastemup, collect massive amounts of weapons, destroy the super_cool_looking_monster_at_the_end_of_this_level. I'd like to know what the difference bewteen Turrican and Shadow Of the best is besides graphics and music. Games like Space Ace and Shadow of the beast are nice demos to show to friends (bragging demos) but they really lack playability. Like Mike says, I want games that look like SOTB but play like Leisure Suit larry. Marc, did you notice that none of these "super" game machines are the top sellers? The NeoGeo is very expensive and the cartridges are >$150 a piece. Nitendo and Sega do not have 24bit graphics. Even the Super Nitendo isn't much of an improvement. The really hot game machines with better graphics than the Amiga not selling that well because they are too expensive. Asking for 24bit graphics all on one chip (with the ability to animate and use them in games) is a little out of this world. Asking it to be cheap is a fantasy. -- / 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 * /