Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

All those picture looks great, but here there is 29 colors... who can do more?

 

 

when i count color in your snap , there are 7931 colors. It seems a graphic filter (may put by the emulator?) has been apply on it.

 

 

Only have 29 colors, however you have here the xexcutable,

 

http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=5980

 

You get 38 colors without any DLIs in Graphics 11 and 9.

[Wolfram]

According to his logic, if they keep the 40*25 color RAM and keep making resolutions like 160*200, 320*200, 320*400, 640*400, 1024*768, they are ALL 16-color modes.

 

I have never said that, nor similar. I have already once told you that you can not expect me each time I talk about that mode to describe every detail. I have already once told you that I dont respect them as true x16 modes.

[atariksi]

without extra effort you have ugly 4 color or 16 shades of one color in huge pixels.

 

Don't even say "ugly" as long as you don't find a C-64 picture that doesn't consist mostly of violet and brown This really gets boring, man, everything C-64 fans bring as fine picture is violet-brown.

 

He seems to be just stuck on his 4-color only or 16-shades although I already proved otherwise. Here's more proof-- 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11 without involving CPU:

 

10 PRINT "Atari BASIC program to show 38 colors/scanline in Graphics 11"

20 PRINT " By Krishna Software Inc."

30 GRAPHICS 11

40 POKE 704,2:POKE 705,4:POKE 706,10:POKE 707,12:POKE 623,16+32+192

50 POKE 708,4:POKE 709,8:POKE 710,2:POKE 711,8:POKE 712,4

60 POKE 53248,80:POKE 53249,88:POKE 53250,160:POKE 53251,176

70 POKE 53252,112:POKE 53253,120:POKE 53254,128:POKE 53255,136

80 FOR T=53256 TO 53265:POKE T,255:NEXT T:POKE 53256,1:POKE 53257,1

90 FOR T=0 TO 79:COLOR T:PLOT T,0:DR. T,191:NEXT T

100 GOTO 100

RUN

[Wolfram]

No, the gray-scale imagery shown as color on C64 is miscolored.

 

 

grayscale images shown as color are miscolored even on a8, or wherever.

[Wolfram]

See your misunderstanding-- you think there's only a 4-color mode or 16-shade mode. There's also 5-color modes. There's also a 9-color paletted mode and there's also a 16-color mode. There's also GPRIOR on top of the graphics modes. It's the C64 which can never even come close to the Atari modes that use more than 16 colors/scanline.

 

sure there are many modes vs a few on c64, each better.

[emkay]

c64 palette is like the ZX Spectrum pallette...

 

Few "ugly" c64 image with his "ugly" palette.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally... i think i like what is ugly!

 

 

It's this kind of "self lying".

 

"120" colours do not suite the C64's original graphics.

 

They put interlace in it, add some "probably PAL artefacts" , then press it through a graphics tool that is calculating it to one "fixed" image. Suggesting people more than the original really is.

[atariksi]

...

...and yes I dont find the a8 palette pleasing, but arguing about a personal subjective preferencesmakes no sense. so lets just forget that, and your opinion about the c64's palette.

 

Palette is not subjective. The bigger the better. Having more shades is also not subjective (vertically overscanned image follows with 8 pixel fix-ups/line using sprites):

[Wolfram]

He was taking a miscolored image and then converting to A8, which is a biased approach. It's better to go to original and then convert to A8.

 

 

it was not miscolored. the image was drawn for c64, there's no "original". its not a convert.

 

then someone asked to show how it would look like on a8.

 

I did. using the original. and it shows the huge difference between built in a8 and c64 gfxmodes indeed.

 

 

looking above, let me ask you: why do you call the c64 one miscolored ?

[atariksi]

No, the gray-scale imagery shown as color on C64 is miscolored.

 

 

grayscale images shown as color are miscolored even on a8, or wherever.

 

But you have no option but to miscolor it else you are also only showing 4 colors (shades). Many C64 pictures posted on this forum require shading, but I see they were miscolored instead.

[Fröhn]

Palette is not subjective. The bigger the better.

True, but the same applies for the ability to actually USE the palette (color density). Palette size = A8 wins, color density = C64 wins.

[Wolfram]

>Wrong. You cannot display any imagery of 16-gray scale or 16-shades of other colors. Higher color density on C64 in your imagination.

 

I was talking about 160x200x~16, its a fact it has higher color density.

 

 

>Once again throwing up arbitrary numbers to confuse people. Prove it's 100X lower density.

 

whatever, its not comparable. the c64 can have a nice 16 color gfx, while you have some colored boxes.

 

 

>Bullcrap. As I stated, the 40 DMA cycles you use up for fetching color RAM, I can use to do a DLI. And GPRIOR will automatically generate further colors.

 

c64 can display a whole game over a nicely colored gfx display. a8 cant do shit. cpu and "sprites" all used up.

[emkay]

...

...and yes I dont find the a8 palette pleasing, but arguing about a personal subjective preferencesmakes no sense. so lets just forget that, and your opinion about the c64's palette.

 

Palette is not subjective. The bigger the better. Having more shades is also not subjective (vertically overscanned image follows with 8 pixel fix-ups/line using sprites):

 

Sadly, no tool exists for colouring up such image.

 

It is no problem to have this many steps of lumas and to use a pink colour for the skin (with all used shades) and blue eyes (with all used shades), make the background velvet (with all used shades)

...and so on....

[atariksi]

Wolfram, do those devices completely eliminate the need for a 1541?

 

In other words, does the C64 see them the same way it does the 1541, or are there issues?

 

I wouldn't trust a word of what he states. He's more biased than TMR and misinformed as well. Everything that C64 cannot do is subjective or useless for him. He reminds me of the story of Dr. Frog in a well. He was stuck in a well and regardless of how many other frogs told him there's an Atlantic Ocean out there, he kept insisting there is nothing better than this well. This is the best. I cannot have any other better home. Such narrow-minded individuals are a complete disgrace to computer society. He can't even accept the Atari has a superior palette what to speak of Joystick ports, hundreds of graphics modes, better interlace graphics, etc. etc. He's a complete waste of time thus far.

 

you got it all wrong. proof from a previous post:

...

Don't just quote back one message; you also did state palette was subjective and I just replied to that.

 

>now please stop with the personal insults, which have no truth.

 

No personal insults; there are messages in this topic which are your biased views and that's what I'm pointing out.

[Wolfram]

...

...and yes I dont find the a8 palette pleasing, but arguing about a personal subjective preferencesmakes no sense. so lets just forget that, and your opinion about the c64's palette.

 

Palette is not subjective. The bigger the better. Having more shades is also not subjective (vertically overscanned image follows with 8 pixel fix-ups/line using sprites):

 

yeah sure, 136 colors at 320x resolution...

 

lets zoom in a bit:

 

 

now bring a picture which doesnt cheats so badly.

[Allas]

He was taking a miscolored image and then converting to A8, which is a biased approach. It's better to go to original and then convert to A8.

 

 

it was not miscolored. the image was drawn for c64, there's no "original". its not a convert.

 

then someone asked to show how it would look like on a8.

 

I did. using the original. and it shows the huge difference between built in a8 and c64 gfxmodes indeed.

 

 

looking above, let me ask you: why do you call the c64 one miscolored ?

 

Why not try with a 47 Atari color screen? no flickering eh?

 

Edited April 17, 2009 by Allas

[Wolfram]

Sadly, no tool exists for colouring up such image.

 

It is no problem to have this many steps of lumas and to use a pink colour for the skin (with all used shades) and blue eyes (with all used shades), make the background velvet (with all used shades)

...and so on....

 

thats just not true. no gfx exists which uses 16 shades for skin & eyes. the only reason being: not possible.

[atariksi]

...

...and yes I dont find the a8 palette pleasing, but arguing about a personal subjective preferencesmakes no sense. so lets just forget that, and your opinion about the c64's palette.

 

Palette is not subjective. The bigger the better. Having more shades is also not subjective (vertically overscanned image follows with 8 pixel fix-ups/line using sprites):

 

yeah sure, 136 colors at 320x resolution...

 

lets zoom in a bit:

 

 

now bring a picture which doesnt cheats so badly.

 

Bullcrap. It's JPEGized which introduces those-- (can't read the extension). I have original BMP which forum won't let me post.

[Wolfram]

Don't just quote back one message; you also did state palette was subjective and I just replied to that.

 

>now please stop with the personal insults, which have no truth.

 

No personal insults; there are messages in this topic which are your biased views and that's what I'm pointing out.

 

I have given proofs that what you have said is not true. You have not prooven your statements. So just stop with the untrue personal insults.

[Wolfram]

He was taking a miscolored image and then converting to A8, which is a biased approach. It's better to go to original and then convert to A8.

 

 

it was not miscolored. the image was drawn for c64, there's no "original". its not a convert.

 

then someone asked to show how it would look like on a8.

 

I did. using the original. and it shows the huge difference between built in a8 and c64 gfxmodes indeed.

 

 

looking above, let me ask you: why do you call the c64 one miscolored ?

 

Why not try with a 47 Atari color screen? no flickering eh?

 

 

its about built in modes. you can forget the clown.

[atariksi]

...

...and yes I dont find the a8 palette pleasing, but arguing about a personal subjective preferencesmakes no sense. so lets just forget that, and your opinion about the c64's palette.

 

Palette is not subjective. The bigger the better. Having more shades is also not subjective (vertically overscanned image follows with 8 pixel fix-ups/line using sprites):

 

Sadly, no tool exists for colouring up such image.

 

It is no problem to have this many steps of lumas and to use a pink colour for the skin (with all used shades) and blue eyes (with all used shades), make the background velvet (with all used shades)

...and so on....

 

I actually had to write a viewer in Windows (in the past 24 hours) to display the Atari format images on the PC and then screen capture it, paste into paintbrush, and then save as JPG. I think I need to get PNG module to it saves it losslessly. Here's another one w/8pixel fix-ups/scanline using sprites followed by an interlaced version of the same:

[Wolfram]

I actually had to write a viewer in Windows (in the past 24 hours) to display the Atari format images on the PC and then screen capture it, paste into paintbrush, and then save as JPG. I think I need to get PNG module to it saves it losslessly. Here's another one w/8pixel fix-ups/scanline using sprites followed by an interlaced version of the same:

 

 

nice, no miscolored pictures...

[Heaven/TQA]

He was taking a miscolored image and then converting to A8, which is a biased approach. It's better to go to original and then convert to A8.

 

 

it was not miscolored. the image was drawn for c64, there's no "original". its not a convert.

 

then someone asked to show how it would look like on a8.

 

I did. using the original. and it shows the huge difference between built in a8 and c64 gfxmodes indeed.

 

 

looking above, let me ask you: why do you call the c64 one miscolored ?

 

now I have to jump in... regarding "built in modes on A8". well...you have to say built in BASIC or OS on A8.... we do not have BUILT in modes... when coding in assembler one of the first things I am doing is designing the display list... so to say the screen layout... so... it is up to me as a coder... freedom... the VIC2 has hardwired built in modes... you are triggering hardware for additional modes but at the end of the day they are carved in stone... or silicon.

 

I tend to say that the VIC-20 (VIC1) chip offeres more freedom... you can have different screen layouts, fullscreen modes, scrolling of whole screen etc...

[atariksi]

Don't just quote back one message; you also did state palette was subjective and I just replied to that.

 

>now please stop with the personal insults, which have no truth.

 

No personal insults; there are messages in this topic which are your biased views and that's what I'm pointing out.

 

I have given proofs that what you have said is not true. You have not prooven your statements. So just stop with the untrue personal insults.

 

Thanks for being as vague as possible. What have you proven to be untrue? That palette is objective, that atari joystick i/o is superior to C64, that Atari has a faster CPU, more color depth, etc. etc. And if you don't trust the images, just run the demo posted earlier in this thread on a REAL Atari. The only difference is it doesn't have the 8 fix-ups per scanline using sprites-- instead has something better-- a 7-shaded curtain on top of a 16-shade image.

[Allas]

its about built in modes. you can forget the clown.

 

Atari doesn't have screen built in modes, only line modes. Believe or not, when you turn on the Atari, doesn't have any mode on it.

There is no 320x200 or 320x240 or 160x200 or 192x200 screen modes, those screens must to be programmed on the Antic first.

[Wolfram]

now I have to jump in... regarding "built in modes on A8". well...you have to say built in BASIC or OS on A8.... we do not have BUILT in modes... when coding in assembler one of the first things I am doing is designing the display list... so to say the screen layout... so... it is up to me as a coder... freedom... the VIC2 has hardwired built in modes... you are triggering hardware for additional modes but at the end of the day they are carved in stone... or silicon.

 

I tend to say that the VIC-20 (VIC1) chip offeres more freedom... you can have different screen layouts, fullscreen modes, scrolling of whole screen etc...

 

yeah, indeed: freedom to choose from many modes which are inferior to the c64.

 

let's just define built in modes: built in mode is one which doesnt uses the cpu to better the picture.

 

both a8 and c64 has such modes. and c64 is better at it. and even if you throw cpu at it on a8, you are lagging behind. the c64 is already doing a game infront of the gfx screen with the same effort of the a8 trying to bring in more colors.