atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 So it's an unfair comparison to compare with some standard 80*200 GTIA image as this did not address the point about shading and resolution being half. And using color RAM allows Atari to have DLIs every few lines to swap palettes. It was simply a comparison of the stock highest colour graphics mode, without having the CPU doing any legwork, on both platforms.. A8 highest colour mode Vs. C64 highest colour mode[1].. It was nothing more than that.. And now it's unfair ? Awwww.. [1] The colour mode you and so many others readily choose to chastise for being utterly shite.. And do you remember what the point was? No obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I think the high resolution C64 pixel art is great. The limited palette is challenging. When somebody weaves it into a great picture, that's classic art, same as many other combination of creative people and hardware limits. There is a different art to working with the lower GTIA, that's all. An example of what that means can be found in the Atari 8 bit forum. Somebody there has a nice start on a 3D FPS engine. Truth is, that engine has the WOLF3D feel, and the higher number of colors, and speed that comes with the lower resolution makes that happen, just like the higher resolution and nice color signal makes the C64 pictures really stand out when it's all used well. No point in hammering on this. All of us just like what we like. (enjoyed the game mechanics / hardware discussion a lot more than "hey, don't these pictures kind of suck somehow?" one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gury Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 For realtime codec work it is impressive for a 1mhz 6510 in any case. Looks better than those A8 Matrix reloaded videos anyway and faster too I can't find the bloody Tron lightcycles C64 realtime video on youtube though which was great. Your personal preference. A8 Matrix scene is clearly better and cannot be done on C64. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ...but no way in the world do these images compare to what the c64 has to offer regardless of the color availability... Such a sentence could be interpreted as if you'd like to say that C64 can do the same as in these pictures, or even (lightyears (Oswald quote)) better. Maybe the 2nd/3rd are a bit washed out, also in my opinion they are indeed, but that's also choice of gfx content, and not only 'worse' A8 features. The 1st does a good job. Simply put, the C64 lacks the possibilities to do any of those 3, but still C64 shows them 'in a better way'??? ...to continue...Look here: http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=102 It's a classic one (Altar). It's an interlaced pic, 160x*192y*64c. Non-interlaced (even/odd frames) it's still 160x*96y*64c, by the virtue of PAL blending. This mode I'd call 'double APAC' (I don't know the official type name). The hue resolution is 80x*96y and the luma resolution is 160*96y (still pictures, no interlace). ...but, this is of course far (lightyears) worse than C64 features. The picture looks horrible. Even standard c64 koala (look at some of mermaids pics) look far better than this offering. I am sure the Atari has more potential however. One question. Can the Atari display sprites under a hires pic? If so then there is certainly some potential ...maybe to your opinion. Then I'd like to see a 100% exact replica of that one on C64. Anyway, I don't like to discuss opinions. The fact is that C64 can't do such pictures For an example of HiRes + PMU: Look here at post 9427 (wowzers, this looks more like a chatting session instead) No. I agree the c64 cant do a replica of this due to not having these colors. but why would it want to be a replica of that? At the end of the day, does not matter if a machine can show colors which another one cant show. its the end result that matters and if you want to show the 'best' atari pic, the c64 will win hands down regardless. That's rubbish just like your original claim. I gave you example of shading. Any picture done on A8 that employs lots of shading will look like crap on C64. And that's something that exists-- not some potential of Atari. Atari will win hands down on most static pictures that use tons of CPU time and interlace because it has superior palette, more CPU time, and better interlace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 oky? You kidding? what is that? Yes the Atari has more colors, but no way in the world do these images compare to what the c64 has to offer regardless of the color availability. Like i said before, i believe the atari has potential but certainly not realised at this present time if at all Certainly in the color domain it's potential may not be realized, but in some other domains it has been realized and it's superior to C64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ... Poor programming again, probably some c64 programmer not knowing A8. You have a talent for finding the few that exist. You have to be carefully with his reviews since he is biased fanatic of C64 so sees nothing advantageous on Atari's side even the palette and CPU. So some games although rated by him as poor are actually better technically than C64 versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ... but why would it want to be a replica of that? ... Maybe you like a replica of this: That is horrible quality. Are you sure you have not seen what the C64 has to offer? I am sure if you did, you would not post a picture like this. The below is from my MUSC converter (and bear in mind that this only has sprite underlay) FLI in combination with this would look FAR better. It looks terrible and can't be compared to REAL colors. This is a spatial dither job (worse than temporal dither) and if you see it the way it is meant to be seen (full screen on TV), you will see those dithered colors. Now if you shrink it and see it as a small window, you don't see the ugly dither patterns. I would think the one posted in post #9499 looks better and that can also be enhanced further. The point I am making is you can't real colors with dithered colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 The pictures are ok in some cases, but the video is like some asswipe paper... I have seen it at youtube already.... For realtime codec work it is impressive for a 1mhz 6510 in any case. Looks better than those A8 Matrix reloaded videos anyway and faster too I can't find the bloody Tron lightcycles C64 realtime video on youtube though which was great. You compare this crap to the "Matrix" ? It isn't even a video. It's some animation played forward and backward.... and the music comes from SID. You C64 guys really have problems with reality, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ... The case of this partly done game does not apply in general. You don't have to toggle modes every line or skip lines. Just simple buffer swaps during VBI gives pretty good results and requires very little CPU time. In fact, you can build some pretty good images with little or zero flicker (if you plan it out by hand); if it's just a general algorithm (automated), it may give some flicker. I wrote this before, but here it is again (for shaded imagery): Original image: 5-bit depth (P=0..31), XRes: 160+ pixels, YRes: whatever Graphics 10 buffer: P(Gr10)=P>>2 Graphics 9 buffer: P-(P(Gr10)<<1)-2 Clip P(Gr9) so zero is minimum. 1. So we can alternate between G10 and G9 buffers - OK.. Understood.. 2. G10 gives us 9 colors ... So when you calculate P>>2 (same as P=P/4 -> P=0..7) you get 8 colors, 1 color remains free ? 3. G9 gives us 16 Luminances ... I know one of these modes is moved one color clock to the right ? What is "P-(P(Gr(10)<<1)-2" ? What is first P in there? Or is it maybe P=(P(Gr(10)<<1)-2 ? So P=(0..7) << 1 -> P=0..14 ? why -2 ? Simply put I think what you ment with those formulas is: separate luminance and color into two 4bit values and fill two buffers with those... It produces kinda 160x200 resolution but colors of pixels depend on pixel left and right of it.... I much more like the idea of mixing one row of 160 luminance pixels and one row of GTIA colored mode... It is 160x100 and pixels square so easy to work with... It does have 80x100 color grid but its better than 40x25 The formula is correct as I stated it: P-(P(Gr10)<<1)-2. The P is the original pixel value (0..31) and P(Gr10) is the pixel value for Graphics 10 (0..7). So if shade is 27, P(Gr10) = 27>>2 = 6, P(Gr9) = 27-6<<1-2 = 13. The formulae are only for 5-bit shading. To incorporate colors, you have to allocate the graphics 10 palette differently since you only have one color left in current scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 The older MUCSU tool was my inspiration.. Even it's really simple method absolutely changes the character of the hires screen totally.. Even with just 3 fixed greys it's like a whole new graphics mode to play with Here is same screenshot converted with MUCSU tool: Almost the same... Game in that mode would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Is that A8 Matrix demo available for download anywhere? I caaaaaan't seem to find it Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) Atari will win hands down on most static pictures that use tons of CPU time and interlace because it has superior palette, more CPU time, and better interlace. Utter claptrap again.. From the evidence posted here "the Atari winning on most static pictures the use tons of CPU time and interlace" is a complete and utter fallacy.. From what I've seen posted here and from looking around there's nothing but stacks of bad ports of 64 pictures and bad attempts at full colour digitised pictures at mechanical TV resolutions.. You say it can do better ? Prove me wrong, please.. Show me picture where it clearly wins.. Edited October 3, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) You compare this crap to the "Matrix" ? It isn't even a video. It's some animation played forward and backward.... and the music comes from SID. You C64 guys really have problems with reality, I guess. Does the Matrix video play backwards ? No! Therefore the c64 is 2 times better because it has 2 playback directions on it.. You do not see the power of commodore after being blinding by your low resolutions! Sound familiar ? Edited October 3, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 The older MUCSU tool was my inspiration.. Even it's really simple method absolutely changes the character of the hires screen totally.. Even with just 3 fixed greys it's like a whole new graphics mode to play with Here is same screenshot converted with MUCSU tool: Almost the same... Game in that mode would be interesting. The thing I was thinking was that you'd have a half and half mix.. Static background areas (or areas where the player can't go) you can use the sprite colours changing as much as you want.. Just in the areas where you'd be drawing the software sprites into the bitmap & sprite layer you'd need to keep the sprite colours constant.. I've just converted that Turrican screen myself and it does look bloody lovely with real colours on it.. It feels like the MUCS/U coluors are a bit off in the tool, though maybe that's just my monitor.. Reality is far more vibrant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irgendwer Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) mate that is bloody awful. it looks like a pc svga screen stripped down without dither to a 16 colour gif. Could it be that you don't like pictures of 'Monet' too? No dithering and no false colours in his artwork... Edited October 3, 2009 by Irgendwer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Atari will win hands down on most static pictures that use tons of CPU time and interlace because it has superior palette, more CPU time, and better interlace. Utter claptrap again.. From the evidence posted here "the Atari winning on most static pictures the use tons of CPU time and interlace" is a complete and utter fallacy.. From what I've seen posted here and from looking around there's nothing but stacks of bad ports of 64 pictures and bad attempts at full colour digitised pictures at mechanical TV resolutions.. You say it can do better ? Prove me wrong, please.. Show me picture where it clearly wins.. Stop the bullcrap with the AGAIN word. You haven't shown where it was claptrap neither this time nor previously. Atari wins hands down with MOST static pictures is a fact if you know the technical what an Atari can do. No fallacy to it but I know you have to deny this since you are a C64 fan. You can't generalize anything from what's posted in a few places. As I stated, 64 picture ports are not good for showing what Atari can do. It's better to see it logically that it can do better rather than showing a few pictures here and there. I am sure I can turn out a few pictures if I put a few hours into it. But what's the problem with understanding the logic-- even simple ANTIC mode E with palette switch every scanline gives you potential for 128 different colors on screen simultaneously whereas you re-use the same 16. More mid-screen color changes than C64 gives you another batch. Sprite overlays/underlays with GPRIOR mode 0 gives a bunch of more combinations. Vector quantize the results to a given image and there you have it-- and all not even touching GTIA modes yet. And there's another mode E' which you may have read about in this thread. I'll let you explain this to me and if you can then I'll take your words more seriously since your conclusion can only be valid ("utter fallacy") if you know both machines potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 mate that is bloody awful. it looks like a pc svga screen stripped down without dither to a 16 colour gif. Could it be that you don't like pictures of 'Monet' too? No dithering and no false colours in his artwork... And obviously that pic you posted was up to Monet standard? Making presumptions on peoples likes or dislikes is a really bad way to try to prove a point. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) Stop the bullcrap with the AGAIN word. You haven't shown where it was claptrap neither this time nor previously. Atari wins hands down with MOST static pictures is a fact if you know the technical what an Atari can do. No fallacy to it but I know you have to deny this since you are a C64 fan. You can't generalize anything from what's posted in a few places. As I stated, 64 picture ports are not good for showing what Atari can do. It's better to see it logically that it can do better rather than showing a few pictures here and there. I am sure I can turn out a few pictures if I put a few hours into it. But what's the problem with understanding the logic-- even simple ANTIC mode E with palette switch every scanline gives you potential for 128 different colors on screen simultaneously whereas you re-use the same 16. More mid-screen color changes than C64 gives you another batch. Sprite overlays/underlays with GPRIOR mode 0 gives a bunch of more combinations. Vector quantize the results to a given image and there you have it-- and all not even touching GTIA modes yet. And there's another mode E' which you may have read about in this thread. I'll let you explain this to me and if you can then I'll take your words more seriously since your conclusion can only be valid ("utter fallacy") if you know both machines potential. Get the pictures out and convince me.. Just show me what all these paragraphs of textual descriptions of graphics modes actually can do.. Edited October 3, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irgendwer Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 And obviously that pic you posted was up to Monet standard? At least I tried to recreate (given the technical restrictions) a little bit of his style. Sorry, I still like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ...No. I agree the c64 cant do a replica of this due to not having these colors. but why would it want to be a replica of that? At the end of the day, does not matter if a machine can show colors which another one cant show. its the end result that matters and if you want to show the 'best' atari pic, the c64 will win hands down regardless. Please don't mix up A8 v C64 hardware features and A8 v C64 gfx artwork standards. It's like saying the gfx mode is crap because the artist made a crap picture....so stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Another spate of technical blather with NO visible proof, is there something wrong with people's eyes!?!? Some (not all I hasten to add) of those C64 images are excellent, the "girl and dragon" series in particular is wonderful, great draftsmanship and use of color. The C64 is lucky to have so many excellent artists dedicated to making great pixel art on it, the A8 seems to lack the dedicated pixel pushers sadly... But all is not lost, I like these A8 images - not they are not BETTER, or meant to be something to compare against, they are just pictures on the A8 I think are GOOD artistically and use the machine well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 This will be an unpopular statement with at least half the people participating in this most epic of debates, but the recent posts show - to me - that the C64's hi-res bitmap images wipe the floor with many of the A8 offerings. I'm Atari through and through, but I wish the Atari had that level of control of colour at that resolution. It's pretty futile offering anything in the GTIA modes as a response to those C64 pics. Atari with VBXE2 - yes, naturally that's going to blow the C64 away. But we should expect that with such a fundamental hardware enhancement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Atari will win hands down on most static pictures that use tons of CPU time and interlace because it has superior palette, more CPU time, and better interlace. Utter claptrap again.. From the evidence posted here "the Atari winning on most static pictures the use tons of CPU time and interlace" is a complete and utter fallacy.. From what I've seen posted here and from looking around there's nothing but stacks of bad ports of 64 pictures and bad attempts at full colour digitised pictures at mechanical TV resolutions.. You say it can do better ? Prove me wrong, please.. Show me picture where it clearly wins.. These aren't pictures but even full animations: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~bpos/TipAnim/ It's a selection of some TIP Animation experiments (to be found here on AA somewhere) from more than a year ago. None of them are originally C64 animations IIRC. (TIP is not APAC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarigmr Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Another spate of technical blather with NO visible proof, is there something wrong with people's eyes!?!? Some (not all I hasten to add) of those C64 images are excellent, the "girl and dragon" series in particular is wonderful, great draftsmanship and use of color. The C64 is lucky to have so many excellent artists dedicated to making great pixel art on it, the A8 seems to lack the dedicated pixel pushers sadly... But all is not lost, I like these A8 images - not they are not BETTER, or meant to be something to compare against, they are just pictures on the A8 I think are GOOD artistically and use the machine well... These ones are great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 ... but why would it want to be a replica of that? ... Maybe you like a replica of this: That is horrible quality. Are you sure you have not seen what the C64 has to offer? I am sure if you did, you would not post a picture like this. The below is from my MUSC converter (and bear in mind that this only has sprite underlay) FLI in combination with this would look FAR better. It looks terrible and can't be compared to REAL colors. This is a spatial dither job (worse than temporal dither) and if you see it the way it is meant to be seen (full screen on TV), you will see those dithered colors. Now if you shrink it and see it as a small window, you don't see the ugly dither patterns. I would think the one posted in post #9499 looks better and that can also be enhanced further. The point I am making is you can't real colors with dithered colors. Wrong. Display on TV set and the colors will mix. It would actually be vice versa on TV set (Will look better) I would prefer dithering over blocky pixels anyday. I have yet to see any atari gfx mode look better than what is offered on the c64. The recent example pics have nice color selection of course, but so darn blocky. C64 images win hands down. But not to say that Atari does not have potential. I am sure its capable of something but I have not seen it 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