atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Atari density colors vs Simple, but more density and more much Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 It is absolutely true the machine does 1/60 second motion. What I posted was about baseband composite NTSC displays, and I posted it to clarify how the systems display differs and to clarify interlace. A C64, running on a monitor that will accept a seperate chroma signal, does not exhibit the motion artifacts. In order for the C64 to display all of it's 320 pixels in color, without artifacting on a composite display, a full NTSC frame must occur. This is just how NTSC works. And this is why C= provided the luma signal. (good move) The refresh rate and all the frames+fields stuff has nothing to do with NTSC/PAL color encoding. Users of the machine are completely free to change the display every frame. If these changes exceed 1/30 of a second, there will be some loss of detail in the image. The loss of detail occurs because of the color interlace. Both A8 and C64 update their frames AND fields at 50 Hz or 60 Hz. The "interlace" you see on both is done by software and just means flipping a page every frame + maybe moving 0.5 pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. I don't think Allas was talking about interlaced graphics. In interlaced modes, A8 graphics modes also expand their color depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I don't think Allas was talking about interlaced graphics. In interlaced modes, A8 graphics modes also expand their color depth. Allas? potatohead. And I think he mixed interlaced modes with non-interlaced modes since he said that the C64 can only display 320x200 @ 30 Hz which is not true. The C64 can ofcourse display 320x200 @ 60 Hz just like the A8 can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. thats something a8 cant do, but on the other hand c64 cant do 16 shades of one color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malducci Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You know the C64 is a great machine! I really like it. Many people do! BUT YOU'VE GOT TO SAY IT! COME ON, SAY IT! C64 IS THE BEST. IF YOU DON'T SAY IT, I GET LIMP. SAY IT! Oh my god, that had me busting up laughing And what makes even more funny is that it's so true too - hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I don't think Allas was talking about interlaced graphics. In interlaced modes, A8 graphics modes also expand their color depth. Allas? potatohead. And I think he mixed interlaced modes with non-interlaced modes since he said that the C64 can only display 320x200 @ 30 Hz which is not true. The C64 can ofcourse display 320x200 @ 60 Hz just like the A8 can. You mixed up Allas with Potatohead. I was replying to Allas who was displaying non-interlaced picture. You are mixing me up with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. thats something a8 cant do, but on the other hand c64 cant do 16 shades of one color. In non-interlaced, Graphics 11 has 16 colors same as C64 so you missed the point, but then you also get GPRIOR on top of that. Interlaced modes give you more combinations on Atari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. If you meant non-interlaced, what mode are you talking about that gives 80*200 @16 colors or are you talking about the CPU driven mode by lowering char height every scanline and leaving no cpu time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You mixed up Allas with Potatohead. I was replying to Allas who was displaying non-interlaced picture. You are mixing me up with someone else. And I replied to potatohead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. thats something a8 cant do, but on the other hand c64 cant do 16 shades of one color. In non-interlaced, Graphics 11 has 16 colors same as C64 so you missed the point, but then you also get GPRIOR on top of that. Interlaced modes give you more combinations on Atari. well, yeah. but it has to be the same luminance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. thats something a8 cant do, but on the other hand c64 cant do 16 shades of one color. In non-interlaced, Graphics 11 has 16 colors same as C64 so you missed the point, but then you also get GPRIOR on top of that. Interlaced modes give you more combinations on Atari. well, yeah. but it has to be the same luminance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 If you meant non-interlaced, what mode are you talking about that gives 80*200 @16 colors or are you talking about the CPU driven mode by lowering char height every scanline and leaving no cpu time. Ofcourse I am talking about the mode using CPU... just like when you have no shame when comparing G2F mode with standard C64 multicolor bitmap mode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saehn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Man, this is epic. Will it ever end? It seems like it all comes down to personal preference, no? I'm a Commodore user, it's what I prefer. But if I grew up on the Atari I'd probably prefer that. But I guess that's not an interesting perspective for topic discussion. I like what I've seen of the better A8 images; a good graphician can make the best of any limitations. It is precisely those limitations that make creating retro graphics interesting. If I could criticize the Atari 8bit scene for anything, it would be for the absence of a site similar to CSDb... someplace where productions are archived, discussed, etc. I would love to easily browse through a gallery containing screenshots of images like "Elfi", which won the Atari Graphics Compo at Forever 2009. Big props to powrooz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 ...to judge yourself... go to g2f.atari8.info and download the full package...in the examples you might find the source files to proof your assumption. Atari meant the CPU to work with ANTIC/GTIA although you can do many things without involving CPU. Just look at WSYNC and being able to make color changes at specific display lines/position. There's no wsync on c64, so here they are relying on software (CPU). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 If you meant non-interlaced, what mode are you talking about that gives 80*200 @16 colors or are you talking about the CPU driven mode by lowering char height every scanline and leaving no cpu time. Ofcourse I am talking about the mode using CPU... just like when you have no shame when comparing G2F mode with standard C64 multicolor bitmap mode You need to go discuss with someone familiar with G2F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland p Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The term 'interlaced' is often misused in graphics trickery. I think the term should only be used when refering to a real interlaced image as in 480i or 576i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Color depth is usually measured rather than density and that favors Atari on GTIA modes and gprior enhanced modes. The C64 can also do 80x200 @ 16 colors with complete freedom which of the 16 colors to use. But that is only a subset of the FLI mode (160x200) which has an even higher color depth. thats something a8 cant do, but on the other hand c64 cant do 16 shades of one color. In non-interlaced, Graphics 11 has 16 colors same as C64 so you missed the point, but then you also get GPRIOR on top of that. Interlaced modes give you more combinations on Atari. well, yeah. but it has to be the same luminance. He's talking about a cpu driven 80*200-- you add cpu time you can use a paletted Graphics 10 and pick from 128 colors or even in Graphics 11 use overlays or dli changes. You are comparing apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The term 'interlaced' is often misused in graphics trickery. I think the term should only be used when refering to a real interlaced image as in 480i or 576i. PAL/NTSC interlace moves every 2nd frame half a pixel down to pretend twice as much rasterlines, C64 interlace moves every 2nd frame half a pixel to the side to pretend twice as much pixel columns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) This is the thread that never ends... Yes it goes on and on my friend... Some people started typing and not knowing what it was... And they'll continue feeding it forever just because... Edited April 17, 2009 by dwhyte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Philsan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 This thread is wrong starting from topic's title. The original interesting question was: Does anybody have any views on where any titles were launched on both Atari and Commodore - and the Atari version is the better of the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 This thread is wrong starting from topic's title. The original interesting question was: Does anybody have any views on where any titles were launched on both Atari and Commodore - and the Atari version is the better of the two? Most of that is way back in November-December of the thread. Many stills and some links to movies were posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ataridave Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I would go with Atari here, on a personal/technical basis. You can't, AFIK, hook up a C64 to a TV set; certainly not with AV cables. And that's where I'd want to play it. Also, there are tons of cartridge-based games for Atari computers; I don't think there are as many with the C64. Now Amigas, you can hook up to a TV. But, again, most of the games are disk-based, and are hard to find in NTSC format-as are Amigas themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The earlier part of the thread was very informative. This part is just FUN! To be clear, on a composite, baseband video display, C64 has interlaced color. A full image occurs every 1/30 second. On a separate chroma / luma display, a full image occurs every 1/60 second. Monochrome pixels are the same either way. Because the C64 has seperate chroma, it's accurate to say it does 320x200x16 @ 60Hz, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. To see it, one does need to use a good display. When doing the PAL color tricks, it takes a 1/25 sec to obtain a full color image, on EITHER MACHINE. Movement faster than that will produce color artifacts. I was trying to post up why, and it got mangled. Ideally, this post sorts that out. If things are being combined across frames, motion is limited accordingly. That's just how it is. Neither machine does any real horizontal interlace. There is pixel shifting for some overlap and additional detail, however said detail does not exceed the addressable resolution of the machine. On Atari, there is a technique that uses color information to produce 640 addressable pixels, and they appear across frames, and exceed the addressable pixel limits on the machine. That would be interlace. Until I get that sorted, it's off the table right now however, just to be completely fair. Vertical interlace appears possible on Atari machines. I've not seen this on VIC II on a C64. (yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts