Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!apple!rutgers!mephisto!eedsp!udel!mmdf
From: S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga Video Mess (was RE: More Marc...)
Message-ID: <30684@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 90 09:21:43 GMT
Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 119

On 16 Sep 90 22:56:22 GMT you said:
>
>   When a company has to resort to hacks to stay alive, that company is
>in dire straits.  Most of the products you mentioned (DCTV and HAM-E,
>among others) are video hacks, and totally incompatible with most Amiga
>software.  All of these products require their own software, and software
>written for one of these products will NOT run on one of the other products.

I agree that the systems will be incompatible.  That's why you choose the one
you need.  Each system is meant for different applications...  You look at
both the MAC and the IBM.  The programmers there have to decide whether or not
to support color (on the MAC and IBM) and whether or not to support CGA, EGA,
VGA, EVGA, TARGA, VISTA, etc... (on IBM).  So what's the difference here?
Each system requires different programming techniques at the cost of BIG
programs as on the MAC or multi programs included as on the IBM.  One for
each version of the card that you have.  Incompatibility isn't really an issue
here.  The Amiga has never had the problem of B/W programs because it has
ALWAYS been color.  There are still lots of programs coming out on the Mac
for b/w.  Most ppl who own Macs don't own a color Mac.  NeXT is going to have
have the same problem as the Mac.  It has no color now.  When it finally
gets color it will still have lots of programs that are running in that
B/W with two shades of grey mode.  From all the programs that I have seen
on the Mac very few use color.  When they do use color, it seems that is almost
an afterthought.  It doesn't feel as though it has been integrated into it.

>   They are all totally useless for anything other than video applications.

Wrong.  Try illustration.  Try Painting.  Try Ray-tracing.

>Not all of us are use our computers for video applications.  Actually, very
>very few of us use our systems for video applications.  So, how do any of
>these products help applications like CAD, DTP, scientific, or multimedia
>applications that require a high-resolution non-interlaced display with
>lots of colors?  They answer is that they don't.

Most CAD and DTP packages I have seen only use 8 to 16 colors at once.  Any
more colors than that significatly slow the package down.  For a CAD package
drawing it in more than 16 colors is useless.  CAD is basically wireframe.
Why would you want millions of colors on the screen slowing the machine down
when drawing in wireframe?  Draw in 16 or 8 (or even 4) colors and ask it to
render in 16 million after you are done.

>   Absolutely none of these products offer a non-interlaced display (which
>is important for most real-world applications), absolutely none of them
>will work with standard Amiga applications, like the few DTP and CAD
>programs that are available for the Amiga.  To make matters much worse,
>none of them will so much as even work with the Amiga's O.S. at all.

As usual, you are wrong again.  DCTV _DOES_ make use of Amiga's OS.  Do I have
to explain DCTV yet again?  DCTV makes use of an Amiga Hi Res screen to display
the information that DCTV uses.  DCTV then displays the information from that
screen.  There will be an adapter that will allow for use of DCTV on your
present RGB monitor.  So your screens will look like they always do.  Then when
pull down a screen with a DCTV image behind it, it will look proper also.  The
screens in front will look like they always do too.  Whether the AMBER will
deinterlace this or not I didn't ask Digital Creations.  I will ask though.
As far as DTP, CAD and scientific, there is no way to, in real-time, to move 24
bitplanes on ANY system other than a RISC or a transputer.  Multimedia, in case
you hadn't realized, relies heavily on NTSC.  What's the point of a non-inter-
laced multimedia production?  Let's face it, NTSC television IS interlaced.
Isn't multimedia for video purposes?  Or am I wrong?  I thought you created a
production which you then tape.  What's the point of having to carry your
computer system with you to display your production?  You don't, you tape it.

>   Commodore is responsible for this rut they've gotten themselves
>into.  I started calling for standards in the market for third-party
>video products over two years ago, when such products first started
>coming out for the Amiga, but nobody listened.  I forsaw the mess
>of incompatible video products coming, and I wanted Commodore to
>set some standards that third-parties could follow to make sure their
>products would be at least somewhat compatible.  Unfortunately,
>Commodore has done absolutely nothing in this area.  They have just
>let third parties design whatever hardware they want, however they
>wanted to, with no regard to compatibility with existing software
>or other video products.  The current mess of numerous, incompatible
>video products with no standards in sight is the result.
>
>   To solve this situation, Commodore absolutely must do one of two thing.
>They have to either produce an improved chipset with competitive color
>capabilities, or they have to improve the O.S. so that it incorporates
                               ^^^^^^^
>device-independent video similar to the MAC.  Unfortunately, I don't see
>either of these two solutions materializing for a long, long, long time.

Improve?  Hmmm.  One reason for the current video system was for ease of
real-time animation and ease of access to it.  There are always going
to be limitations in ANY hardware configuration, no matter how far sighted
the developer.  The Mac has troubles with real-time anything on their video
system.  Remember, that it also costs a MINT to output NTSC video output from
the Mac system as well.  Apple has had to include a processor on their display
cards to improve performance to a DECENT level.  Amiga does it with ease.

I wouldn't consider the Amiga moving to the system that Mac uses as an
improvement.  It would just impose limitations on an already equiped multimedia
machine.  No pageflipping with that system.  The bus contention would be kill
that.  Zorro II bus that is.  Zorro III equiped systems might not.  Of course,
the Amiga already has the video slot for future upgrades into another video
system.

As far as the future enhanced graphics and sound chips, Commodore has already
responded to that.  They said that are developing systems for both the short
term and long term demands.  As far as what that means we'll have to wait and
see.  I also doubt that we'll have to wait as long as MB says.

There is one thing I haven't figured out yet.  If you like the Mac so much
WHY did you purchase an Amiga?  Or are you actually a MAC owner tormenting
comp.sys.amiga?  Hmmm I wonder....

>                                   -MB-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 =======================================================================
||To steal from one is plagiarism.  To steal from many is research.    ||
||___________________________________               ---UNKNOWN---      ||
||                                   |      / /                        ||
||---Brian Wright                    |     / /                         ||
||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu      | \ \/ /  Only Amiga              ||
||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile|  \/\/      Makes It Possible!!  ||
 =======================================================================