dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (04/24/91)
Well, I have owned an Amiga 2000 for several years now, and I am getting ready to buy a 3000, but I have one serious question before I even begin to get the money ready. Does any company have plans to make a video card that will allow the Amiga to display 1024x768 resolutions with at *least* 256 colors? For $130.00 I can get a Trident card for a 386 PC to do the same. I am *very* surprised that C= didnt make this a standard video display mode, or at least something similar. Seriously though, anything less that 1024x768x256 just doesnt hack it for good looking video anymore, and I am curious if the Amiga 3000 will ever handle it. The Viedo Toaster solution is obviously not the way to go. It is sort of embarrasing to see a PC display 1024x768x256 for a total investment of around $150.00. (not including monitor) So, anyone know? Or is the Amiga doomed to be stuck with 640x400x16 for the rest of its days.... (If you haven't seen 1024x768x256 before, look at it. It *IS* impressive. -- dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky
n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) (04/24/91)
Digital Micronics has a 1024 x 800 with 8 plane color (256) that has been shown at a few expos. But it is expected to cost around $1000. They have plans for 1280 x 1024 with 24 bitplanes using the TMS 34020 controller chip that will come with 1 Meg of memory and 4 Megs of VRAM, and a 34082 FPU. The 1024 x 800 x 8 uses the 34010 chip. John
sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) (04/24/91)
Well the amiga can go 1024x400 interlace (with 4 color max from a small palette).But I dont think this what you are looking for :-) 64kh monitor are not that cheap, but you can break the 16 color barier and get a 24 bit frame buffer.
diamond@hubcap.clemson.edu (David Lee) (04/24/91)
n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >Digital Micronics has a 1024 x 800 with 8 plane color (256) >that has been shown at a few expos. But it is expected to cost >around $1000. They have plans for 1280 x 1024 with 24 bitplanes 24 bit *PLANES* ???????????? >using the TMS 34020 controller chip that will come with 1 Meg of >memory and 4 Megs of VRAM, and a 34082 FPU. > The 1024 x 800 x 8 uses the 34010 chip. >John -- David C Lee "I hold a cup of wisdom but there Clemson University // is nothing within..." Clemson,SC \X/ Amiga -Kate Bush
n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) (04/24/91)
Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? John
tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) (04/25/91)
In article <15250@helios.TAMU.EDU> n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? > >John I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. Todd -- Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet
jcs@crash.cts.com (John Schultz) (04/25/91)
In <15230@helios.TAMU.EDU> n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >Digital Micronics has a 1024 x 800 with 8 plane color (256) >that has been shown at a few expos. But it is expected to cost >around $1000. They have plans for 1280 x 1024 with 24 bitplanes >using the TMS 34020 controller chip that will come with 1 Meg of >memory and 4 Megs of VRAM, and a 34082 FPU. > The 1024 x 800 x 8 uses the 34010 chip. The DMI 34010 and 34020 video boards work in both the A2000 and A3000. These boards do not use the video slot. Thus, you could have up to five boards in an A2000. Further, these products are not simple frame buffers- they are high performace (relative to the Amiga) graphics coprocessors. At any time you can access any part of the coprocessor VRAM or DRAM. You can write programs that run in parallel on the 34010/020 side, while passing commands from the Amiga. The 34010 board will be ideal for desktop publishing, CAD, hi-res paint boxes, and simple simulation/animation. The 34020 board (still in design phase) will sport a 34082, spec'd out at 40 MFLOPS. It's got built in matrix operations as well. Serious real-time simulation will be possible with this board. The 34010 board should be available to developers RSN (Quote dates? no way...)DMI showed the board at World of Amiga, NY, and is currently showing the board at NCGA in Chicago. The release version of the board will be utilizing the Brooktree 453 palette, giving a max resolution of 1280x1024x8, and direct hardware support for X-Windows. Programmers will be able to access the board for graphics applications using a graphics library (NOT a device driver, as with the A2410). Custom applications can use the 34010/20 C compiler and assembler to implement custom code. I am a consultant for DMI and am writing all of the software to support their hardware. Feel free to give input or ask technical questions about how to make your software work these graphics coprocessors. John DMI's number is (619) 931-8554 My number is (619) 442-5880
Fletcher@cup.portal.com (fletcher sullivan segall) (04/25/91)
> > Well, I have owned an Amiga 2000 for several years now, and I >am getting ready to buy a 3000, but I have one serious question >before I even begin to get the money ready. > > Does any company have plans to make a video card that will allow >the Amiga to display 1024x768 resolutions with at *least* 256 colors? >For $130.00 I can get a Trident card for a 386 PC to do the same. I >am *very* surprised that C= didnt make this a standard video display >mode, or at least something similar. Commodore West Coast showed the ULowell card at the last FAUG meeting here in Palo Alto. It was attached to an A3000 running UNIX/SVR4. The representative said that there wasn't yet any planned release date for the card. I don't doubt that once it is released that someone will be working on an Intuition driver for it. > > Seriously though, anything less that 1024x768x256 just doesnt hack it >for good looking video anymore, and I am curious if the Amiga 3000 will >ever handle it. > What do you mean by video. The video I'm interested in doesn't have anything to do with higher resolutions, it has to do with more colours. > The Viedo Toaster solution is obviously not the way to go. It is >sort of embarrasing to see a PC display 1024x768x256 for a total >investment of around $150.00. (not including monitor) > The toaster is a wonderful way to go if you want toaster output. But since you seem to want 1024x768x256 I would suggest that you get a PC Clone. I have no doubt 1024x768x256 cards will forever be cheaper on PC Clones that any other equipment available. Personally I still wouldn't take one if you gave it to me. (But then I have this bias against Intel architectures.) > So, anyone know? Or is the Amiga doomed to be stuck with 640x400x16 >for the rest of its days.... (If you haven't seen 1024x768x256 before, >look at it. It *IS* impressive. > Ever look at the price tag on the monitor? Now that is what I call impressive. My personal opinion is that the high resolution cards have a long way to go before they really become useful. Right now they are dead-slow. Manufacturer's are only beginning to put intelligent controllers on the display cards, without which a 25MHz 386 Clone slows to a crawl. Very few programs support these cards. Many of the card manufacturers include patches to make some of the more popular programs run with their hardware, but this is a kludge at best. The current state of graphics in the PC world requires a program to create all of its graphics itself. You don't call BIOS to perform a line draw, and the variety of available cards forces the writers to create a program that works with the lowest common denominator... each bit is written, one at a time. So even if your more expensive display card has a built-in controller, the program can't use it. If you are a programmer, I would strongly recommend the Amiga. As a development platform for moderate to large sized programs it is much more enjoyable and easy to use than the PC (or UniX IMHO). On a PC you can watch your run-times more than double just because you need to run in protected mode (ie use more than 640k of memory). The Moniterm display is an exceptional high-resolution display. The mouse is much more responsive, the multi-tasking is to die for. (I wrote my own pre-emptive scheduling multi-tasking scheduler under MSDOS. It is important to realize that MSDOS is non-reentrant. Every task that wants any DOS service under my environment first has to gain exclusive access to MSDOS, or risk the infinite loop.) Enough gibbering, I've already made my decision. Hope you are as happy with yours as I am with mine... -F. Sullivan Segall _______________________________________________________________ /V\ E-Credibility: (n -- ME) The unguaranteed likelyhood that ' the electronic mail you are reading is genuine rather than someone's made up crap. _______________________________________________________________ Mail to: ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!fletcher or fletcher@cup.portal.com
kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (04/25/91)
In article <41634@cup.portal.com> Fletcher@cup.portal.com (fletcher sullivan segall) writes: > The Viedo Toaster solution is obviously not the way to go. It is >sort of embarrasing to see a PC display 1024x768x256 for a total >investment of around $150.00. (not including monitor) since you seem to want 1024x768x256 I would suggest that you get a PC Clone. I have no doubt 1024x768x256 cards will forever be cheaper on PC Clones that any other equipment available. Personally I still wouldn't I don't think resolution of display is the primary purchasing factor for this person or anyone else.... but as far as price goes, cheaper is one thing, 1/10th the cost is another. > So, anyone know? Or is the Amiga doomed to be stuck with 640x400x16 >for the rest of its days.... (If you haven't seen 1024x768x256 before, >look at it. It *IS* impressive. Ever look at the price tag on the monitor? Now that is what I call impressive. So do I..... $350 or a multisync (or at least trisync) monitor, $150 for the card. Poof, you've got 1024x800x8 color for $500 - and about 2 programs that use it. (My roommate just did this less than a week ago, and now feels silly because he's got a nice 14" megapixel monitor which he uses mainly to play games in 320x200x8 mode and the only program which actually takes advantage of the screen size is Lotus, and the characters are small enough to give even me a headache). Anyway, the incompatibility thing is what would make me prefer a Mac or Unix/Xwindows box over a PC or Amiga if I wanted to make the most of a megapixel display. My personal opinion is that the high resolution cards have a long way to go before they really become useful. Right now they are dead-slow. Ever used a Sun Sparcstation IPC? Pretty nice, if real expensive. If you are a programmer, I would strongly recommend the Amiga. As a development platform for moderate to large sized programs it is much more enjoyable and easy to use than the PC (or UniX IMHO). On a PC you For big program development with a steep but very rewarding learning curve, surely. For banging out programs by the dozen though, I have to recommend the Borland Turbo series on the PC, much as I hate the machine itself. They're fast and concisely documented compilers. Enough gibbering, I've already made my decision. Hope you are as happy with yours as I am with mine... I am..... I use PC's at work, IPC's and Macs elsewhere, and I go home, sit down at my Amiga, and feel much more comfortable. Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu> No more bars! No more cages! Just rollerskating, disco music, and the occasional light show....
frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr24.211729.19270@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) writes: >In article <15250@helios.TAMU.EDU> n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >>Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? > >I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 >bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. > -- I think you're right about that. Think about it. A quick calculation tells you that a 640x400 pixel image with 24 bitplanes would occupy SIX megabytes (6,144,000 bytes, to be exact) of storage. Likewise, a 1024x768 image which had 24 bitplanes would occupy 18,874,368 bytes. Not something you'd be able to display on your average Amiga 3000. "24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). -- Frank McPherson INTERNET : emcphers@fox.cs.vt.edu -- -- AmigaUUCP : uunet!vtserf!morpheus!frank --
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (04/25/91)
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: > Does any company have plans to make a video card that will allow >the Amiga to display 1024x768 resolutions with at *least* 256 colors? >For $130.00 I can get a Trident card for a 386 PC to do the same. I >am *very* surprised that C= didnt make this a standard video display >mode, or at least something similar. (So I am quoting myself (-8 ) Anyway, does anyone have any experience with the HAM-E product? I have noticed the ads before, and the attractive pricing, but I was curious as to the quality of the output, and what features it had to offer for such a low price. -- dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/25/91)
In article <15230@helios.TAMU.EDU> n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >Digital Micronics has a 1024 x 800 with 8 plane color (256) >that has been shown at a few expos. But it is expected to cost >around $1000. Indeed. Add Commodore's own A2410, which does 1024x768 with 8 bits/pixel, driven with a TI34010. There are a few others, too. This is a trend I would expect to see continue. Sure, you CAN build a no-brain VGA-type display that will do 1024x768 (though the cheap ones are generally interlaced, while most of the high end stuff is noninterlaced). However, that is exactly what you wind up with, a no-brain display. A 1024x768x8 display has ten times as many pixels to push around as a plain old 640x480x2 Workbench screen. Doing it via a VGA chip interface makes this even worse, since you have contention with the VGA circuitry. So, the bottom line is, I don't expect you'll see any real low end video displays for the Amiga, expecially not until retargetable graphics comes along. You don't want to plunk down $1000+ for a monitor, $150 for a card, just to get a 10x graphics slowdown, no matter how nice all those pixels look (as a user of a 1000x800x2 display on the Amiga myself, I realize how nice all those pixels look). A bit more money can at least try to give you the same kind of graphics performance you're used to by supplying some kind of pixel processor, like the TIGA chips. Actually, TIGA is probably going to catch on big, since it's already supported under UNIX. >John -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/25/91)
In article <15250@helios.TAMU.EDU> n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? Seems to me the confusion is over the word "bitplanes". These cards provide 24 bits/pixel. Since a TI 34020 is a packed-pixel based machine, the actual storage is in terms of packed pixels. Were it based on the National Semiconductor DP8500 chip set instead, an equivalent board would indeed have 24 bit planes (and a blitter for each plane as well, but that's a separate issue). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
nygardm@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Michael T. Nygard) (04/26/91)
>I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 >bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. >Todd >-- >Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu >NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu What do you think 24 bit planes means anyway? 24 bits per pixel. One bit-planeper bit. = 24 bit planes. Mike Nygard nygardm@coil.cco.caltech.edu
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/26/91)
In article <frank.4544@morpheus.UUCP> frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: >-- >I think you're right about that. Think about it. A quick calculation >tells you that a 640x400 pixel image with 24 bitplanes would occupy SIX >megabytes (6,144,000 bytes, to be exact) of storage. Likewise, a >1024x768 image which had 24 bitplanes would occupy 18,874,368 bytes. Not >something you'd be able to display on your average Amiga 3000. > That's 24 BIT planes, not 24 BYTE planes. 640x400 with 24 bit planes is 750K, or 640 * 400 * 3. 24 bits is 3 bytes. >"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will >correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). > 24 bit graphics means 24 bit graphics. What you're referring to is 8 bit graphics, also the SVGA standard. > >-- Frank McPherson INTERNET : emcphers@fox.cs.vt.edu -- >-- AmigaUUCP : uunet!vtserf!morpheus!frank -- -- Ethan "Brain? What is Brain?"
mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) (04/26/91)
In article <frank.4544@morpheus.UUCP> frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: >In article <1991Apr24.211729.19270@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) writes: >>I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 >>bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. I think there is a little confusion here. In graphics systems, the frame buffer is organized as either a packed pixel array, planar array, or some hybrid of both (generally speaking). Regardless of the memory configuration, a 24bit graphics system has storage for 3 bytes of data per pixel. I do not understand why any distinction is being made between "24 planes" and "24-bit plane" and it occurs to me to be more of a case of confusion in terminology. I assume you are refering to the two different memory organizations mentioned above. If so, 24 plane and 24bit require the same amount of memory and produce the same output. The only difference is the way the data is accessed, each having its own advantages. >"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will >correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). "24 bit graphics" DOES imply 24bits per pixel of storage and not 8bits. Anyone who calls their 8bit board (256 color out of 16M) 24bit graphics is lying. However, with all the hype about 24bit graphics lately and all the over-zealous marketing going on, its easy to get confused. %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~% % ` ' Mark Thompson CONCURRENT COMPUTER % % --==* RADIANT *==-- mark@westford.ccur.com Principal Graphics % % ' Image ` ...!uunet!masscomp!mark Hardware Architect % % Productions (508)392-2480 (603)424-1829 & General Nuisance % % % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/26/91)
In <1991Apr24.211729.19270@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) writes: >I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 >bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. Todd, what's the difference? A quick display tutorial: The Amiga display thinks in bit-planes. The bytes in A bit- plane represent 1 degree of freedom for the display of 8 con- secutive PIXELS. The degree of freedom could be part of a color lookup table index, one bit of a direct grey-scale or direct- mapped color, or a special function such as alpha or z. The "normal" Amiga uses it as part of a color lookup table index. So, if monochrome is all I need in some portion, or all, of the display, I allocate the number of bytes which is the number of pixels, divided by 8 (plus boundary rounding). A 640x400 monochrome display is, therefore, 32000 bytes. Similarly, a 16- color display takes 4 bitplanes, one for each degree of freedom required. The bitplanes need not be contiguous, and different displays on the screen can be different depths, thereby conserving memory. A 24-bit display, then would have 24 bitplanes. Other display families allocate display memory in nibbles, bytes, words, long-words, etc. such the each nibble... represents the entire value of 1 pixel. A 4-color (two bits) display on a byte- oriented system "wastes" 6 bits per pixel. Often, 24-bit display systems are direct-mapped. For ease of use the pixel addresses are located on long-word boundaries, creating "holes" in the display address map. Some systems fill the holes with alpha or z information. A special purpose "true-color" display that is not going to be used for any other output can be built cheaper in this fashion, rather than having to keep track of the 24 pointers to the bitplanes. There are some systems that will remap the ENTIRE display memory from 2 to 4 to 8 or whatever, but they cost more. So, there is NO difference in the color resolution between a "24-bit" display and a display that supports 24 bitplanes. Dan Taylor
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (04/26/91)
In article <frank.4544@morpheus.UUCP> frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: >I think you're right about that. Think about it. A quick calculation >tells you that a 640x400 pixel image with 24 bitplanes would occupy SIX >megabytes (6,144,000 bytes, to be exact) of storage. Likewise, a Humm, I guess you flunked math (big :-). 640x400x3(bytes) = ~3/4 MB >1024x768 image which had 24 bitplanes would occupy 18,874,368 bytes. Not 1024x768x3 = ~2 1/4 MB >something you'd be able to display on your average Amiga 3000. Seems quite manageable to me. :-) You got mixed up with the byte/bit conversion, I guess... >"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will Consider yourself corrected, 24 bit graphics means 24 `bits' (not bytes ;-) are used per pixel. >correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). That would be an 8-bit graphics board with a 24-bit palette. >-- Frank McPherson INTERNET : emcphers@fox.cs.vt.edu -- Loren J. Rittle -- ``The Amiga continues to amaze me--if I had not been told that this video was created using the Amiga and Toaster, I would not have believed it. Even Allen said, `I think I know how he did most of the effects.' '' - Jim Lange Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (04/26/91)
In article <frank.4544@morpheus.UUCP> frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: >I think you're right about that. Think about it. A quick calculation >tells you that a 640x400 pixel image with 24 bitplanes would occupy SIX >megabytes (6,144,000 bytes, to be exact) of storage. Likewise, a >1024x768 image which had 24 bitplanes would occupy 18,874,368 bytes. Not >something you'd be able to display on your average Amiga 3000. Check your math, you forgot to divide by 8. A 1K x 1K x 24 bit display takes exactly 3 Meg. To be really useful, the board will need an aditional processor to speed things up. Several companies have announced such boards, and 1 from PP&S will have upto 8 Megs to allow true megapixel double-buffering. (Will the developer who has this board please send me some hands on info about this board, or better yet, just send me the board :) ) >"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will >correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). 256 colors = 8 bits regardless of the palette. If they say otherwise, they are lying. Rick
arno@cbmnlu1.cbm.nl (Arno Griffioen) (04/26/91)
In article <frank.4544@morpheus.UUCP> frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: >I think you're right about that. Think about it. A quick calculation >tells you that a 640x400 pixel image with 24 bitplanes would occupy SIX >megabytes (6,144,000 bytes, to be exact) of storage. Likewise, a What? 6 Mb? You've got to be kidding! (640x400x24)/8=768000 bytes. 768000/1024=750 Kb!! >1024x768 image which had 24 bitplanes would occupy 18,874,368 bytes. Not >something you'd be able to display on your average Amiga 3000. Sorry, but 1024x786 is about (exactly) 2Mb, so there's absolutely no problem in using 24 bitplanes. This will fit very nicely in a somewhat upgraded A3000 (or A2000/500 for that matter). >"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will Yes it does. >correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). Nope, those are 8-bit boards. VGA is also an 8-bit standard, although it has an palette of 18-bit (262144 colours) >-- Frank McPherson INTERNET : emcphers@fox.cs.vt.edu -- >-- AmigaUUCP : uunet!vtserf!morpheus!frank -- Bye Arno. -- Arno Griffioen | Commodore Nederland B.V. Unix Support Center Email: arno@cbmnlu1.cbm.nl | Tel: (+31) 020-5806748 or: arno@cbm.nl | "The light at the end of the tunnel... Is the headlamp of an oncoming train!"
frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.192819.20350@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > That's 24 BIT planes, not 24 BYTE planes. 640x400 with 24 >bit planes is 750K, or 640 * 400 * 3. 24 bits is 3 bytes. > >>"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will >>correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >>boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >>palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). >> -- Yes, thank you, I seem to have been quite a bit brain dead yesterday, and forgot to divide the number of bits by the size of a byte. Oooops. I think I'm embarrassed. -- Frank McPherson INTERNET : emcphers@fox.cs.vt.edu -- -- AmigaUUCP : uunet!vtserf!morpheus!frank --
tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr24.043853.20723@coplex.uucp- dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes:
-
- Well, I have owned an Amiga 2000 for several years now, and I
-am getting ready to buy a 3000, but I have one serious question
-before I even begin to get the money ready.
-
- Does any company have plans to make a video card that will allow
-the Amiga to display 1024x768 resolutions with at *least* 256 colors?
-For $130.00 I can get a Trident card for a 386 PC to do the same. I
-am *very* surprised that C= didnt make this a standard video display
-mode, or at least something similar.
-
- Seriously though, anything less that 1024x768x256 just doesnt hack it
-for good looking video anymore, and I am curious if the Amiga 3000 will
-ever handle it.
-
- The Viedo Toaster solution is obviously not the way to go. It is
-sort of embarrasing to see a PC display 1024x768x256 for a total
-investment of around $150.00. (not including monitor)
-
- So, anyone know? Or is the Amiga doomed to be stuck with 640x400x16
-for the rest of its days.... (If you haven't seen 1024x768x256 before,
-look at it. It *IS* impressive.
-
---
-dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks)
-Copper Electronics, Inc.
-Louisville, Kentucky
Commodore will RSN (?) sell the ULowell board (TIGA-based) for their
Unix 3000's. What's lacking is the software for AmigaDos.
No pricing info available.frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) (04/26/91)
In article <61934@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) writes: > >I think there is a little confusion here. In graphics systems, the frame >buffer is organized as either a packed pixel array, planar array, or some >hybrid of both (generally speaking). Regardless of the memory configuration, >a 24bit graphics system has storage for 3 bytes of data per pixel. I do >not understand why any distinction is being made between "24 planes" and >"24-bit plane" and it occurs to me to be more of a case of confusion in >terminology. I assume you are refering to the two different memory >organizations mentioned above. If so, 24 plane and 24bit require the same >amount of memory and produce the same output. The only difference is the >way the data is accessed, each having its own advantages. > >>"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will >>correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >>boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >>palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). > >"24 bit graphics" DOES imply 24bits per pixel of storage and not 8bits. >Anyone who calls their 8bit board (256 color out of 16M) 24bit graphics >is lying. However, with all the hype about 24bit graphics lately and all >the over-zealous marketing going on, its easy to get confused. -- It was pointed out to me that some (all, possibly?) of my numbers were off by eight. It seems that I temporarily forgot that there are these things called bytes, and these things called bits. I was freely intermixing them, which takes away any meaning the numbers I was posting could have had. So, now here I go with what I should have been doing in the first place: asking questions. (Side note: I divided my numbers by eight. The answers are now much more reasonable. <sheepish grin> A 640x400x24 picture takes 768,000 bytes. The numbers I was so amazed at getting before were in bits; I didn't realize that until someone pointed it out to me.) Do these things have 24 bits of information per pixel, or do they have 24 bitplanes? What's the difference? I thought that 24 bitplanes MEANT that something had 24 bits of colour information per pixel. If that's not what it means, then my understanding of bitplanes is way off, and someone should explain it to me. (Again, sorry for posting my numbers in bits yesterday, while calling them bytes. I should be less hasty about following up to something I don't really know anything about.) -- Frank McPherson INTERNET : emcphers@fox.cs.vt.edu -- -- AmigaUUCP : uunet!vtserf!morpheus!frank --
kuch@reed.edu (04/26/91)
Dave Haynie mentioned 1000x800x2 on his Amiga. Is this the A2024/Hedley? if so, is that thing actually available for sale yet, or still coming? What does it/will it sell for?
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (04/27/91)
In <8=vg2!m@rpi.edu> kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: >I don't think resolution of display is the primary purchasing factor >for this person or anyone else.... but as far as price goes, cheaper >is one thing, 1/10th the cost is another. What 1/10th? The Toaster is oriented toward broadcast video standards, therefore provides full color, but at broadcast resolutions. The PC versions cost MORE, not less. The Toaster, in addition, provides double buffering for realtime output, and support for special effects. Right this minute, no one is selling a 1024x768 display adapter for the Amiga. There are several under development, but every one I've heard of has a co-processor, like a 34010 or 34020. These cards are more like the $1000 PC cards, so there isn't anything to compare the $150 cards against. It wouldn't cost much more to build a "dumb" Amiga display adapter to put out that resolution, mostly just the volume discount on the parts. But, such a card has minimal functionality in an Amiga, so why bother? Dan Taylor.
tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) (04/27/91)
In article <911@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <1991Apr24.211729.19270@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) writes: > > >>I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 >>bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. > >Todd, what's the difference? My lack of knowledge of terminology ;). I guess I'm used to the Mac where you have "chunky" pixels. (That is the color Macs. Other Macs support chunky/planar and planar pixels). > [Dan's explanation deleted] >So, there is NO difference in the color resolution between a "24-bit" >display and a display that supports 24 bitplanes. Correct. Sorry for my yapping of the mouth. Todd -- Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet
Ken_Cooper@mindlink.bc.ca (Ken Cooper) (04/27/91)
Frank McPherson writes:
Do these things have 24 bits of information per pixel, or do they have
24 bitplanes? What's the difference? I thought that 24 bitplanes MEANT
that something had 24 bits of colour information per pixel. If that's
not what it means, then my understanding of bitplanes is way off, and
someone should explain it to me.
------------------------
True color requires a certain number of shades, so that the eye doesn't see
banding. Hence 256 shades. And with 3 colors - red, green & blue =
256x256x256 = 16,777,216
8 bits per color x 3 colors = 24 bit color.jcs@crash.cts.com (John Schultz) (04/27/91)
In <frank.4544@morpheus.UUCP> frank@morpheus.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: [stuff deleted] >>>Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? >>>Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? >> >>I think you mean 24 bits of information or a 24-bit plane, (i.e. 24 >>bits of information for each pixel) and not 24 planes per se. >> >I think you're right about that. Think about it. A quick calculation >tells you that a 640x400 pixel image with 24 bitplanes would occupy SIX >megabytes (6,144,000 bytes, to be exact) of storage. Likewise, a >1024x768 image which had 24 bitplanes would occupy 18,874,368 bytes. Not >something you'd be able to display on your average Amiga 3000. What? 1024x768x24 = 2,359,296 bytes of storage. 24 bits = 3 bytes. >"24 bit graphics" does not imply 24 bit planes. I'm sure someone will >correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that with normal 24 bit graphics >boards, they allow you to choose 256 colours (8 bitplanes) from a >palatte of 16 million (approx. 2^24). 24 bit graphics means 24 bit graphics. You can conceptualize however you like: 24 bitplanes or 24 bits per pixel (3 bytes per pixel). The Amiga is bitplane oriented. The TMS34010 is a packed pixel (a bit addressable processor as well). John
peter@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Peter Wemm) (04/27/91)
n298ad@tamuts.tamu.edu (John Jordan) writes: >Yes, 24 bitplanes, SO??? And about time I might add... Even SGI Iris's have 24 bitplanes. :-) >John -- Peter Wemm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ peter@cs.curtin.edu.au (Home) +61-9-450-5243 Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers. (Dan Zerkle)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (04/29/91)
In-Reply-To: message from es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu What should also be understood is that bits for display and bits for pallette are entirely different. The "standard" Amiga has 12bits for its pallette, but only 6 usually for display, depending on resolution. A "standard" Personal Iris has 24bits for its pallette, and 8 for its display. My DCTV has 24bits for its pallette, but displays 22bits...while some will dispute whether or not it's a 24bit device, there is no way to tell from the screen because there aren't more than 4.2 million pixels onscreen. The point would be moot. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1991 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) (04/30/91)
I have to object 100% to that! come on... On the personal Iris you just add you video ram to get 24bit has you add memory to a A3000. DCTV -> 4 bit per pixel, 640x400 (+Overscan). You can display the full 24bit palette for having 24bit without 24bit is 'not' trully possible or you impose limitation of color choices. And the amiga has only 5 true planes. With true 24bit display you can display DCTV images, but DCTV cant display corectly all 'true' 24bit display... Has I laready said, try line drawing, text, windows etc... on DCTV. If you compare DCTV vs Colorburst you will see little diference with 'TV' images (DCTV will look a little more blury), but with anything else DCTV will go short. Stephan.
mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) (05/01/91)
In article <frank.4626@morpheus.UUCP> writes: >Do these things have 24 bits of information per pixel, or do they have >24 bitplanes? What's the difference? I thought that 24 bitplanes MEANT >that something had 24 bits of colour information per pixel. If that's >not what it means, then my understanding of bitplanes is way off, and >someone should explain it to me. 24 bitplanes means it has 24 bits of information per pixel. It also however implies something about the memory organisation. 24 bit color does not imply 24 bit planes. People who do not know about graphics hardware internals may use the two interchangeably. Thats because from a user's standpoint, there is no difference, both will produce identical output. But basically 24 bit color is a generic term to describe all 24bit true color architectures and 24 bitplanes is a subset of those using a planar memory architecture (with no difference in output). Hope this clears things up. %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~% % ` ' Mark Thompson CONCURRENT COMPUTER % % --==* RADIANT *==-- mark@westford.ccur.com Principal Graphics % % ' Image ` ...!uunet!masscomp!mark Hardware Architect % % Productions (508)392-2480 (603)424-1829 & General Nuisance % % % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~