Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!sdcc6!rblewitt From: rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Subject: Re: So, does *anyone* make 1024x768 x256 for the A3000? Message-ID: <18670@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Date: 26 Apr 91 06:16:33 GMT References: <15250@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Apr24.211729.19270@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 25 In article 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