Barnacle boy Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Once upon a time, one quiet autumn afternoon, the Atari fans were sitting around relaxing on their favourite forum. Then suddenly, the big bad c64 fans arrived to cause a ruckus! Eek!!! Soon there was some flaming going on, and everyone had fun barking at each other and playing with pencils! And they all lived happily ever after... in the past! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No there is no sacrifice at all. Combination of pal blending with hires particularly when its specifically drawn to take advantage of both is the way. So, why am I missing some parts/details on the C64 version then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Another example. This time plain MUCSU (sprite banks changed every 21 lines. No color splitting. Included is c64 executable. 10k In regards to the post about the matrix video. Its unfair to compare against stock methods. Yes, the atari's availability of colors enables minimum processor overhead when converting grayscale video to 80x200 etc mode. But try showing a video like this in data that fits to one side of floppy disk? womanpic.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 A quick experimentation. I got two of these images (above. shrunk each vertically, put them side by side and fed them through my converter) Pre dithering to utilise vertical pal color mixing (which does generate additional colors on c64). Image is in MUSC mode. Yes of course more colors on Atari 800 to choose from but this c64 example you have twice the horizontal resolution and with the inclusion of pal mixing, more colors than the 16! Not wanting to in ANY way be a A8 fanboy (I have stated there are many great images in this thread from the C64) - but the original 160X200 A8 images are MUCH nicer - those conversions are very unattractive, in particular they really leach away the rich colors which for me is a key part of the pictures, and the vertical stretching ruins the "style" completely IMHO... sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No there is no sacrifice at all. Combination of pal blending with hires particularly when its specifically drawn to take advantage of both is the way. So, why am I missing some parts/details on the C64 version then? First pic is without pal blending, second is with pal blending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No there is no sacrifice at all. Combination of pal blending with hires particularly when its specifically drawn to take advantage of both is the way. So, why am I missing some parts/details on the C64 version then? There shouldn't be anything missing, it's not like APAC but rather the previous line alters/blends with the next one to give a new colour, nothing is missed out to produce it just like defocussing your eyes when you read this doesn't mean it's suddenly a lower/blurry res. If you're looking at it on an emulator with PAL blending then it wont work the same as a TV would because it isn't one Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 A quick experimentation. I got two of these images (above. shrunk each vertically, put them side by side and fed them through my converter) Pre dithering to utilise vertical pal color mixing (which does generate additional colors on c64). Image is in MUSC mode. Yes of course more colors on Atari 800 to choose from but this c64 example you have twice the horizontal resolution and with the inclusion of pal mixing, more colors than the 16! Not wanting to in ANY way be a A8 fanboy (I have stated there are many great images in this thread from the C64) - but the original 160X200 A8 images are MUCH nicer - those conversions are very unattractive, in particular they really leach away the rich colors which for me is a key part of the pictures, and the vertical stretching ruins the "style" completely IMHO... sTeVE To be fair running an image through a converter and not redrawing it by hand is never going to produce the best quality anyway but yes the originals are nicer imho, if that's because of the mode or the conversion software... Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 A quick experimentation. I got two of these images (above. shrunk each vertically, put them side by side and fed them through my converter) Pre dithering to utilise vertical pal color mixing (which does generate additional colors on c64). Image is in MUSC mode. Yes of course more colors on Atari 800 to choose from but this c64 example you have twice the horizontal resolution and with the inclusion of pal mixing, more colors than the 16! Not wanting to in ANY way be a A8 fanboy (I have stated there are many great images in this thread from the C64) - but the original 160X200 A8 images are MUCH nicer - those conversions are very unattractive, in particular they really leach away the rich colors which for me is a key part of the pictures, and the vertical stretching ruins the "style" completely IMHO... sTeVE To be fair running an image through a converter and not redrawing it by hand is never going to produce the best quality anyway but yes the originals are nicer imho, if that's because of the mode or the conversion software... Pete Yes, the images are specific to the Atari and c64 cannot reproduce these hence why images specifically drawn for one machine will look better for that machine. None the less considering that a tweaked mode on atari squashed to 1x1 resolution with colors that c64 does not have, its not bad outcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 LOLMAO The video plays backward to save CPU time and Memory. This is not to show "great powers", it's just a reuse of data. You guys get ridiculous more and more.... Obviously the irony of that went zooming over your head.. I knew I should have been clearer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No argument there either. I prefer the originals because, like I say, that's what they are, but the conversions are very good considering the "restrictions" Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTIQ Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Sort of on that subject, i've been mulling over GTIA-based backgrounds and questions like which is better, going for 4:1 ratio pixels at sixteen colours or having each pixel line repeat so they can be 2:1? The latter is easier (in my case it'll reduce the CPU load for background-related jobs by over 50% and drawing game graphics in 4:1 ratio is an utter pig) but feels like cheating somehow. The problem with 80x100x4 bits is that it tends to look worse than 160x200x2 bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Of course, but we're not arguing recent video systems being strapped to the machines (well okay, we are to a degree with the GTIA modes since they weren't bolted in until a few years after the machine went out) and the C64 camp simply took it in another direction and produced enhanced versions of the entire machine. GTIA predates the C64 very slightly. (Three guesses why!) Yeah, i know but that wasn't my point entirely; a CTIA-based A8 can't display GTIA images but a stock first PAL issue C64 can show anything from it's side of the fence in this thread. Wait that many years after the release of the C64 and there's the C128 and at least some of the bets are off; one random example there (and this works from C64 mode, there's a demo by Antic if memory serves that uses it) is the ability to force the VIC-II to "forget" the chroma and just send luma to the display, giving eight shades of grey at 320x200. Of course, there are more possibilities and quite a bit of uncharted territory there as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianoid Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Look, I'm not following this discussion, all 384 pages of it. But I will tell you this. When I want to play classic computer games I use my C64. There are two reasons. The main one is that 8-bit disk drives that work without repair or rehab are uncommon. I don't have the chops to get them all going, or the time. I rarely have trouble with 1701 drives. As I understand it, 8-bit Atari drives tend to need alignment and other maintenance. The second reason is that the C64 was more popular, or at least the software is more readily available, and I happen to have found a ton of it. I wish I had found the same amount of 8-bit disks, but I simply haven't. I think that Atari disk soft is generally harder to find. I would rather use Atari software and play games on my Atari computers, but I limit that to cartridges for the above reasons. And I boot up my C64 for most of my disk retrogaming needs. Shameful, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No argument there either. I prefer the originals because, like I say, that's what they are, but the conversions are very good considering the "restrictions" Well, it's not perfect and i've tweaked a few bits here and there (the knife blade reflecting the blue of the moonlight looked "wrong" to me) but i thought this went pretty well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Sort of on that subject, i've been mulling over GTIA-based backgrounds and questions like which is better, going for 4:1 ratio pixels at sixteen colours or having each pixel line repeat so they can be 2:1? The latter is easier (in my case it'll reduce the CPU load for background-related jobs by over 50% and drawing game graphics in 4:1 ratio is an utter pig) but feels like cheating somehow. The problem with 80x100x4 bits is that it tends to look worse than 160x200x2 bits. Question is, will 80x200x4 look better than 80x100x4 or just come across as forcing shades in for the sake of it...? And drawing a circle at 4:1 pixel ratios is incredibly painful i've found! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) ... try derezzing and decolouring it and see how much of that sky is left. ... Here the result. Ok, without ulterior motives, which one reproduces better the impression? (16 colours, typical rez) How many times do i have to say "i don't rate any wired port jobs" before it sinks in? i am not going to discuss which is the better screen out of two wired nasty looking ports. you have once again attempted to twist what i said onto some other tangent. the quote that u posted from me was me replying to your statement that the original had little tonal range, NOT saying that u needed to dither or not to dither to get a good result. Steve Edited October 3, 2009 by STE'86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 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. You are right,even when the issues on both side have been covered here endlessly he continues on. Indeed very sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 No argument there either. I prefer the originals because, like I say, that's what they are, but the conversions are very good considering the "restrictions" Well, it's not perfect and i've tweaked a few bits here and there (the knife blade reflecting the blue of the moonlight looked "wrong" to me) but i thought this went pretty well... As that resolution is at 2x1. Would be just as easy to have used Koala Mode or/and to use colors of similar luma every odd even lines to create non standard colors which 'fit' more better with the atari colors. ofcourse this would require more colors per 4x8 block but nothing that FLI cant do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford 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. I couldn't agree more ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) Look, I'm not following this discussion, all 384 pages of it. But I will tell you this. When I want to play classic computer games I use my C64. There are two reasons. The main one is that 8-bit disk drives that work without repair or rehab are uncommon. I don't have the chops to get them all going, or the time. I rarely have trouble with 1701 drives. As I understand it, 8-bit Atari drives tend to need alignment and other maintenance. The second reason is that the C64 was more popular, or at least the software is more readily available, and I happen to have found a ton of it. I wish I had found the same amount of 8-bit disks, but I simply haven't. I think that Atari disk soft is generally harder to find. I would rather use Atari software and play games on my Atari computers, but I limit that to cartridges for the above reasons. And I boot up my C64 for most of my disk retrogaming needs. Shameful, isn't it? No, it's simply beautiful !!! Enjoy it mate Edited October 3, 2009 by Rockford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford 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. You are right,even when the issues on both side have been covered here endlessly he continues on. Indeed very sad... So, Castle Wolfenstein is better on A8.... LOL atariksi can even prove that water isn't wet and grass isn't green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) Well, it's not perfect and i've tweaked a few bits here and there (the knife blade reflecting the blue of the moonlight looked "wrong" to me) but i thought this went pretty well... As that resolution is at 2x1. Would be just as easy to have used Koala Mode or/and to use colors of similar luma every odd even lines to create non standard colors which 'fit' more better with the atari colors. ofcourse this would require more colors per 4x8 block but nothing that FLI cant do. Well, i was just doing a quick and relatively simple by hand conversion (i added in the bottom right corner of the picture to expand it out to 40 bytes wide and tweaked some of the colours a little here and there, but generally speaking it's the same image) and it's just a stock multicolour mode pic at the back end of that. i had a go at Altar as well, it didn't work particularly well to be honest (the yellow on the tiger's face was a mistake) but the source image wasn't exactly a masterpiece to start with and, again, this is straight multicolour bitmap with the C64's CPU idle whilst the A8 is throwing significant wedges of processing power and about 6K more bitmap data at it. Edited October 3, 2009 by TMR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 There are two reasons. The main one is that 8-bit disk drives that work without repair or rehab are uncommon. I don't have the chops to get them all going, or the time. I rarely have trouble with 1701 drives. As I understand it, 8-bit Atari drives tend to need alignment and other maintenance. :!: Atari drives are very reliable with the possible exception of the XF551 (Tramiel era) which had problems with weak traces to the SIO ports. The Commodore 1541 (by far, the most common drive in the US) is the drive known for knocking itself out of alignment. You can find a used 1050 for about ~$15-25 and you'll probably never have any trouble with it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarigmr Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Of course, but we're not arguing recent video systems being strapped to the machines (well okay, we are to a degree with the GTIA modes since they weren't bolted in until a few years after the machine went out) and the C64 camp simply took it in another direction and produced enhanced versions of the entire machine. GTIA predates the C64 very slightly. (Three guesses why!) Yeah, i know but that wasn't my point entirely; a CTIA-based A8 can't display GTIA images but a stock first PAL issue C64 can show anything from it's side of the fence in this thread. Wait that many years after the release of the C64 and there's the C128 and at least some of the bets are off; one random example there (and this works from C64 mode, there's a demo by Antic if memory serves that uses it) is the ability to force the VIC-II to "forget" the chroma and just send luma to the display, giving eight shades of grey at 320x200. Of course, there are more possibilities and quite a bit of uncharted territory there as well... C128 part in Up the Limits 2 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tezz Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 There are two reasons. The main one is that 8-bit disk drives that work without repair or rehab are uncommon.I've had my 1050 for 23 years without a days trouble 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