Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop From: sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: 24 Bit Video .. Summary: Better video wanted? Message-ID: <406@tlvx.UUCP> Date: 23 Sep 90 19:31:20 GMT References: <26f592d2-2c05comp.sys.amiga@tronsbox.xei.com> Organization: Temporal Vortex BBS of Jacksonville, Florida Lines: 140 In article , mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > In article <26f831b6-2c05.2comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: > >None of them are trying to kill the Amiga in video. They're just tired > >of MB's whining. He admits that he's been doing it for years. First, > >he's screaming for video that can't be done. It's explained that it > > That doesn't mean tha the ISSUE is not valid. > > True. But the 10th time around, the only way to not waste bandwidth is > to not answer him. Flaming him is so much more fun :-). I would settle just for some ideas on what it would take to get this stuff done. :-) > > >critical part of low-end Amigas, and that software compatability > >across the line is critical to the Amiga. We also realize that giving > >up either of those would be a _bad_ thing. Far worse than than not > >having an 800x600x8 mode. > > Some other time I would debate that , you say that NTSC is > needed for "video production" ... but how many stock A500's are ... > My point is I guess that low end and NTSC dont have to go together. > > No, I didn't say "video production", though that's true. The reason > NTSC is critical for the low end is that it means you can sell the 500 > as a high-powered video game. Much as we may disparage people calling > the Amiga a game machine, that's part of the reason there are more > 500s than any other type of Amiga. Ask most developers how they feel .... > >But jumping to it as a base to soon requires sacrificing either > >software compatability, or raising the price on the "low-end" Amiga. > >I can produce 24-bit deep images on the Amiga. I just can't display > > So then we should never push for a better entry mode ?? > > Yes, we should push for a better entry model. But at the right time, > which isn't now. What makes NTSC important at the low end is that it When is the right time? I haven't seen a post explaining just what needs to be done to do things's "right." Yes, I want things done well, so we can move forward with our software base, but what is the real problem here? Take HAM-E for example. What's the worst thing you can say about it? "Oh, for the clones, you must program different code for each supported video mode." What happens with normal HAM, however? I view the built-in HAM mode as something a little bit special, since programs that use it have to run over and fix the fringies. :-) It seems to me that it's a bit different than using the other modes, and so plugging in other boxes like HAM-E or DCTV would be much the same way. Display programs would just put up a screen of data without interpreting it, like current HAM. Programs that draw into the HAM mode tend to be "special". Programs that use HAM tend to display images, not allow word processing, etc. Now after saying that, what would be nice is some simple way to create a program (say a raytracer) that will use HAM, but if available will use one of the other boxes. This sounds like a pain, but perhaps AREXX will save us here. (Like, the raytracer will output files, which, through AREXX, can call up programs for either HAM-E or DCTV [depending on which you own] to convert to their format and add to an ANIM file.) This assumes the 24 bit standard can be used as the transfer medium between the different formats. This however doesn't offer a solution to those who want 800 by 600, to put up a workbench screen and do word-processing on (or maybe CAD and DTP?). I think this is a separate issue. This is the one we should be looking at to see if there's a way to integrate things. How does the new 1200 by 400 mode fit into the scheme of things? How possible would it be to fit in boards supporting other resolutions, and have it work within the current system? Does it requires modes to be defined by Commodore? Drivers? > keeps monitor cost down; possibly to nothing. The right time to > upgrade the low end is when higher-resolution monitors start being > cheap. SuperNTSC (roughly double the resolution of stock NTSC) is > supposed to start showing up in about two years. That will drive the > price of high-resolution monitors down, and would be the right time to > introduce a new low-end Amiga to take advantage of that resolution. Shoot, I got a great multisync for about $500. I'm ready for high-res, now; I don't need to wait for it to get cheaper. It seems to me that as soon as a new standard is known (I haven't heard of the term SuperNTSC -- does this imply that someone is working on a new standard?), then you should go ahead and try to implement it. You could always sell the A500's without additional modes, if there was such a price difference. If the monitor was the only question, then you can do like what the productivity mode gives you: you can use the normal modes, but if you have a multisync, you get this non- interlaced higher res display. ... > Yes, but other upgrades didn't raise the base cost of getting started > with a low-end system. To get Lotus et. al. to produce Amiga software, > you need as many Amigas sold as you can get. Raising the price of the > low-end machine is counterproductive. You mean, Lotus to create for the same machine that, above, you said was supposed to be a game machine? ;-) ;-) > > When A1000 users complained about not getting 2.0 folks said .... > > We didn't let the MAC and IBM'ers off with that > "It's good enough for what we do" stuff , tand I don't buy > it now. > > Yes, but that answer doesn't include "and it's going to be solved in > the future". There's a difference between not admitting that a problem > exists, and being satisified with the current solution that's admitted > to be inadequate because you know that an adequate solution is in the > works. I agree, I don't think Amiga owners are saying "it's good enough" the way the clone people talked about multitasking, oh, just 2 or 3 years ago. :-) I think most people here are just trying not to have a hodge-podge of cards each with some different standard, and software which may work on one but not another. An 800 by 600 by 8 mode which no software will run on is sort of.. well useless, right? So, how do you interface the hardware to the programs? Via the OS. In comes Commodore and/or creative developers.... > > MB is no more realistic than the person who asked for an R3000 based > Amiga with an i860 graphics accelerator. They both want the > impossible, and neither seems to care whether they kill the Amiga in > the process of getting it. Heh, yeah, well, at some point, if you add enough hardware to a system, it becomes an entirely new system. I was thinking about that R3000 topic, well that's ok with me, so long as I can open a screen and run standard AmigaDOS programs. :-) Given the specs of the '040, I really won't be lusting for a RISC chip any time soon. > >