Lazarus Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Nope, it means 50fps stuff runs at twice the speed of 25 fps. Not at all, it just means that stuff is twice as smooth. But if you are no able to see it, where is the benefit? It's easy to see it: 25 Hz will give you flickering edges while 50 Hz won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Hm... something is wrong with that pic it has 14 different values of brightness wich is not possible on the C64. Eh? I just downloaded it from lemon, loaded it into Gimp, it's indexed colour with 14 colour entries. It's not using 2 of the C64s 16 colours. If there are any "brightness" anomalies I'd think it's whatever output the picture. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If Van Gogh art is beautiful than those distorted colors are considered normal for that artwork. Nonetheless, if he had 256 distorted colors in his artwork and that same image was rendered on 16 color system, it will be uglier. You can only claim it's distorted if it's not representative of the original. So when representing the analog imagery of the world on a computer (even the artists imagination contain analog imagery-- has a Platonic existence), the more colors/shades you have, the more beautiful the results. It's objective. That's got to be the most ridiculously stubborn thing you've ever written in this forum, and I've seen you write a lot of things like that. You have no significant arts background, or you would not write something as ignorant as that. ... Don't get emotional and show your fanatacism. Answer the point or let someone more capable answer it (if there any). You're speculating I have no arts background. You are full of ignorance as you have not even addressed the point as is evident from your reply. beauty - The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. Obviously (to any balanced perspective) this indicate a high level of individual taste. Beauty is a subjective concept. It is not quantifiable. What is beautiful to one person may not be beautiful to others. More colors do not necessarily make something beautiful. A black and white photo can be more beautiful to someone than a color version of the same photo. You think emotional response invalidates that perspective? Defining something as "beautiful" IS an emotional response. ... The point is the world is more beautiful with more colors and shades. You take the same image reduce the colors/shades it is less beautiful. I am not arguing beauty in general -- only as relates to colors/shades. How did you miss that point. I can also say "scraping the bottom of the barrel" is a thing of beauty but that has nothing to do with the point. Now think about it before you reply. All you did was do Chewbacca defense-- confuse the point being made. News flash: you are not right about everything. You are often wrong, just like everyone else. You would be a much more balanced person if you would admit your mistakes to yourself and others. Why don't you admit first that you are wrong here. Secondly, list the points where I am wrong. Then I'll take you more seriously. I can also blurt out "you are always wrong" but so can someone say "moon is made of cheddar cheese." It takes some brains to prove things. Any person can give his opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective. Personally, I love black and white films. I hate colourised black and white films. That said, there are many colour films I enjoy. I used to draw portraits in pencil: pure monochrome. I've spent hundreds of pounds on fancy digital cameras and I often end up purposely removing the colour and upping the grain. Why? It looks nice. ... You're confusing two different things here. You may have emotional attachment to old style photography/video but that has nothing to do with the fact that more color and more shades make the image/video more beautiful. You are just preferring your attachment over the beauty of the colors/shades. My point is that "more colour and more shades" do not automatically make the image more beautiful. They make it more colourful. You, in fact, may be confusing the words "colourful" and "beautiful". ... I am not confusing the words. I am relating the beauty to colors/shades. Given the world has objects with infinite gradiences of colors/shades and you are preferring something b&w over colored, that is unrelated to my point. You are just expressing your opinion you prefer the b&w. Objectively, the colored image with shades is the more beautiful representation. It's closer to the original. Actually, even B&W movies when colorized may lose some shades as the signal is superimposed but that's a minor point. More colour might equal more beauty to some: to others it won't. It really depends how that extra colour is used. Sometimes it's used appallingly badly on the Atari... To keep things objective, I stated that without abusing the colors. It's not subjective as "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" since that was made before digitization, takes into account factors like form, expression, etc. not just colors/shades. If two artists paint the same picture with same palette, and you prefer one over the other that's subjective. But if you gave one artist 16 colors and the other 256-- the objective factor comes in that he will wind up painting things that are ugly regardless of his skill. I disagree basically with the last point... but let's get down to brass tacks. What if the artist with 16 colours had 1:1 AR pixels at 320x200 while the guy with 256 had 2:1 pixels at 80x100 with dark horizontal bands across every second line of his canvas? OK - so that's in GTIA mode (the only mode where all 256 colours are available at all: the rest of the time, we have 128 to choose from). Perhaps he'd be better off in one of the higher res modes, wisely using a smaller number of colours from the available palette. That might look better... Yeah, but you are no longer performing a controlled experiment here. Now you are mixing up two different things-- resolution and color which was discussed briefly as a separate topic. You have to compare imagery represented with more colors and shades with that of less and you will see that the statement that more colors and more shades make the world more beautiful is always true. Nothing subjective about it. As for your point about color depth vs. resolution, I haven't made any comparison of 80*100 with 320*200. I did post one example of 320*480*16 vs. 160*480*256 and the latter came out better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I wonder why 'atariksi' point so difficult to understand. Just inspect the attached picture: If the creator intentionally took grey for the skin tone, ok then it is part of the artistic expression. But I dare to say, that I cannot imagine that for the artistic expression of every C64 artwork the C64 palette was the perfect match. So it is of course better to have a bigger choice of colours like on A8 - just the same way it's better to have a more flexible choice in addressing colours horizontally on the C64 thanks to the colour ram. Two different restrictions - I'm not able to say which restriction is more worse, since I think it depends on the use case. tbh thats a really crap image to make a point with. nobody in their right mind would use so much light grey as highlight and the c64 certainly didnt pick it to use instead of the pink so the artist must have made the (bad) choice. why dont u go and find something better rather than picking a crap 64 screen to "prove" your point? oh and while u are about it, consider the fact that an artist couldnt actually draw that natively on an atari. to display that requires u to "wire" it either from another machine or with the help of a programmer to provide underlays. so really your point is a touch moot. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Well, if a big palette means great graphics then the atari 2600 should have 'better' graphics than the C64 Which ofcourse isn't true, you just can't compare those figures. The specs are built around the bandwith limitations of the RAM (many colors > low resolution, few colors > high resolution, charmode etc.). Some may prefer one, some prefer the other. Actually, that's how this discussion started in the first place. I posted an image of an Atari 2600 screenshot and said this is more beautiful than what C64 can do. It's true you can get A2600 screenshots looking better than those on C64, but once again like some others are doing, you are mixing up two different things here-- resolution and color depth. You have first agree on the statement that more colors and more shades make the world more beautiful and then we can rediscuss other things. Both machines have the same resolutions by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I know I'm lazy and don't have the time to finish it. Here a 10 min. work in G2F... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 To keep things objective, I stated that without abusing the colors. It's not subjective as "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" since that was made before digitization, takes into account factors like form, expression, etc. not just colors/shades. If two artists paint the same picture with same palette, and you prefer one over the other that's subjective. But if you gave one artist 16 colors and the other 256-- the objective factor comes in that he will wind up painting things that are ugly regardless of his skill. that is such a load of complete b*llocks its laughable. so, more colours will always win out? RUBBISH. ... Actually, I would argue even more to my side that all beauty if objective even taking into account form, expression, color, shades, etc. but currently I am just sticking to colors/shades as even this seems so hard for some people to grasp. Two artists can both make mistakes or be restricted in rendering the image ideally so that it becomes a subjective issue. More colors and shades always wins out in a controlled experiment as mentioned already. Witness the MANY Atari ST and amiga pieces of artwork that are compositionally and artistically challenged compared with the best 8bit stuff in the late 80s. and the fact that Dave Thorpe used to do commercial Spectrum artwork that knocked alot of the c64 stuff into a cocked hat. your opinion is not defensible and is seemingly only held by yourself in your own little world. quite simply u have painted yourself into a corner because u cannot just admit its your own opinion. why can't u do this? ... It's not an opinion. You can deduce that any image of this world is better rendered with more colors and shades than with less. More colors and more shades make the world more beautiful. Only if you misuse the colors/shades and get distorted colors (say 16) vs. a image with more accurate colors (say only , then the former can be uglier. its because as u well know, several pages back u denied to TMR and PeteD that any such subjectivity existed. so in effect u have stated the fact that "i am right. everyone else is wrong because subjectivity and personal preference doesnt exist" ... No, I am still sticking to the statement that there's nothing subjective about more color and more shades making the world more beautiful. You do have a personal preference but that doesn't mean it's just as good as one that's based on facts. If I think earth is flat-- that's my personal preference and experience but that does mean that's just as good as someone who KNOWS earth is round. now u are just squirming around as usual trying to make everyone get bored with your nonesense (which even Albert thought was nonesense didnt he?) ... People are free to disagree. There are many things that sometimes you don't agree with but find out they are correct. So let's hear proof. no. i dont think this time i will let it go. ... I don't care if you let me go or not. But I don't take just calling something "bullock" or "rubbish" is some major evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saehn Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Don't get emotional and show your fanatacism. Answer the point or let someone more capable answer it (if there any). You're speculating I have no arts background. You are full of ignorance as you have not even addressed the point as is evident from your reply. Cute. The only "emotion" here is amazement... and what we're discussing has nothing to do with computer systems, it has to do with your seeming inability to differentiate between subjective and objective concepts. I did address the point, below: The point is the world is more beautiful with more colors and shades. You take the same image reduce the colors/shades it is less beautiful. I am not arguing beauty in general -- only as relates to colors/shades. How did you miss that point. I can also say "scraping the bottom of the barrel" is a thing of beauty but that has nothing to do with the point. Now think about it before you reply. All you did was do Chewbacca defense-- confuse the point being made. No, your original point was that artworks (not "the world" as you've now changed it to) are more beautiful with more colors. Again, my reply, which you ignored: no, not necessarily. To quote myself: "A black and white photo can be more beautiful to someone than a color version of the same photo.". And to quote you: "Answer the point or let someone more capable answer it (if there any)." Why don't you admit first that you are wrong here. Secondly, list the points where I am wrong. Then I'll take you more seriously. I can also blurt out "you are always wrong" but so can someone say "moon is made of cheddar cheese." It takes some brains to prove things. Any person can give his opinions. I'm perfectly correct in asserting that beauty is a subject concept and does not necessarily depend on colors. I just did list at least once where you were wrong (regarding that very concept). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland p Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You have first agree on the statement that more colors and more shades make the world more beautiful and then we can rediscuss other things. Both machines have the same resolutions by the way. I agree that more colors make nicer pictures while using the same resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Ofcourse the availability of colors is great. but whats the point when you cant condense many colors into one area (and in hires). You can have a machine that can have an availability of 16 million colors but if you can place only 2 into one line in blocky 2x1 pixels whats the point. The only way the atari can beat the commodore in regards to hiresolution imagary (meaning 320xXXX) would be if there was a method of placing many color values in hiresolution. Low res always looks bad regardless. Plus4 did it with the DFLI mode (which looks absolutely lovely) I have yet to see an atari image in hires with many colors in one given area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
José Pereira Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I know I'm lazy and don't have the time to finish it. Here a 10 min. work in G2F... This proves that we A8 can do this pictures better. 256 it is more than 16 to choose from. But this I think we all know, just see all the G2F examples (even if they are C64 ripped). But my real reason to be hre now it's a simple question: Why put Pink as the skin colour? On C64 only 16 colours I understand, but on A8? Lightest Browns weren't better? It's my opinion... What you all think? Bye, José Pereira. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealgorithm Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You need to bear in mind that images should be pixelled taking into account the computers limitations. Converting a c64 image that has been specifically designed to take advantage with c64's color attributes will not look good on atari and the same vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I know I'm lazy and don't have the time to finish it. Here a 10 min. work in G2F... well thanks for that. but if u re read my post u will see that u have just proved my point, when i said that picture couldnt actually be DRAWN BY AN ARTIST in native atari format WITHOUT the help of "wiring" from another format. 2 mins in photoshop indexed colour mode and a 64 palette: i can do it too. but this one COULD be drawn on a native 64 format. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland p Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You need to bear in mind that images should be pixelled taking into account the computers limitations. Converting a c64 image that has been specifically designed to take advantage with c64's color attributes will not look good on atari and the same vice versa. A while ago the graphics thing was already discussed in this thread, together with C64 pictures and Atari pictures. I think both machines produce nice graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irgendwer Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) tbh thats a really crap image to make a point with. No, it a perfect image to underline what I tried (obviously unsuccessful) to explain. nobody in their right mind would use so much light grey as highlight and the c64 certainly didnt pick it to use instead of the pink so the artist must have made the (bad) choice. why dont u go and find something better rather than picking a crap 64 screen to "prove" your point? To prove my point it is totally irrelevant how an other artist would work. How do you know that the grey wasn't taken to have this specific artistic expression (like stated for other C64 imagery (yellow and green for cheeks))? oh and while u are about it, consider the fact that an artist couldnt actually draw that natively on an atari. Irrelevant. It seems that you try to insist that a 16 colour restriction is an advantage - sorry I cannot agree. I've already pointed easier access for the restricted colours on C64 out. Is it really so difficult? Edit: Attached a sample which you may accept: Skin colour: Restriction or Intention? And please forget that it is may not possible to reproduce this image on A8 - it has nothing to do with the point. Edited October 16, 2009 by Irgendwer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Not that I want to flame you, but to me this just sounds like double standards. When somewhere in this thread someone says something postive for C64 or something negative for A8 I don't hear you. But when it's the other way around, here comes TMR. Underline those sentences. I guess it's just too much to expect any impartiality from the few Commodore users who feel strongly enough to come here to argue. (As I've mentioned before, the many sensible C64 enthusiasts are busy enjoying thier machines and posting constructive, original thoughts in C64 forums where these guys can't find an audience and wouldn't be taken seriously.) One must question the psychology that motivates the ridiculous behavior of these bad actors. They think that somehow relentlessly arguing for the C64 (a creation they had absolutely nothing to do with) can, in some delusional fantasy, stroke their egos. They have some ludicrous notion that they are somehow related to the C64 and can attribute credit and personal validation to themselves through it. Boasting and blowing-off about its success is, in some distorted and wholeheartedly fallacious way, a method of feeling good. There's a duality of their situation, with it being both sad and laughable at the same time Please forgive me if I choose the latter - HA HA HA! :) To acknowledge any Atari stregth or any C64 weakness would make their misguided egos go limp. Hence the one-sidedness. Stroke away at those egos, boys; you'll never be taken seriously here, either. By virtue of the fact that you are here, you have a problem. So "C64rs" are not allowed to answer to some claim against their beloved machine, when in their opinion it is not true ? And maybe their opinion is based on much more time spent using C64, playing games, programming, and reading docs about it, then any A8 only guys here... Maybe, just maybe they really know what they are talking about ? For whatever reason they are here they show some interest in Atari and could be a positive people... Just give them a chance.... First: A8 has bigger palette than C64, has more bits dedicated to collisions, has faster cpu, has DLIs, LMSs, has sprites that are whole screen tall and whole bunch of other cool stuff! Second: I'll ask for permission next time I try to say something against dogmas that are standard in this dominion And I do think Rockford could post a few posts in some other topics - this way it really seems he is on a personal crusade I came to atariage few years ago because I took my 800xl out of the box and plugged it in to remember good old times... Then I wanted to see how good it is... Wanted to try to develop something for it. And somehow found Atariage while searching for software sprite routine (It was Heaven/TQA's Beyond Evil thread ). And I stayed.... lot of good info, people who like to help... No amount of "fallacious", "hater", "bias" or "Stroke" will make me leave AtariAge. I love my atari and I love my C64. If anyone wants a good and productive discussion about any of them I'll be here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) tbh thats a really crap image to make a point with. No, it a perfect image to underline what I tried (obviously unsuccessful) to explain. nobody in their right mind would use so much light grey as highlight and the c64 certainly didnt pick it to use instead of the pink so the artist must have made the (bad) choice. why dont u go and find something better rather than picking a crap 64 screen to "prove" your point? To prove my point it is totally irrelevant how an other artist would work. How do you know that the grey wasn't taken to have this specific artistic expression (like stated for other C64 imagery (yellow and green for cheeks))? oh and while u are about it, consider the fact that an artist couldnt actually draw that natively on an atari. Irrelevant. It seems that you try to insist that a 16 colour restriction is an advantage - sorry I cannot agree. I've already pointed easier access for the restricted colours on C64 out. Is it really so difficult? Edit: Attached a sample which you may accept: Skin colour: Restriction or Intention? And please forget that it is may not possible to reproduce this image on A8 - it has nothing to do with the point. are u being deliberately obtuse? have i not just posted a pink example of a face above? of course the artist has chosen an expressionist colour set for the face. the bloody leaf is blue ffs and the face is green. if u wanted "real" the leaf would be green wouldnt it? so do YOU think it was a ccolour limitation? Steve edit u have exactly the same amount of pink/orange/brown shades as u have green. theres a clue for u EDIT 2. and i have to congratulate u on finding that pic. that is a VERY nice artwork example Edited October 16, 2009 by STE'86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irgendwer Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) are u being deliberately obtuse? ...and my teacher told me at school brits consider germans as impolite.... have i not just posted a pink example of a face above? Yes, so what? of course the artist has chosen an expressionist colour set for the face. the bloody leaf is blue ffs and the face is green. if u wanted "real" the leaf would be green wouldnt it? so do YOU think it was a ccolour limitation? In fact: I don't know it - and I wouldn't bet on it. But what I know is, that if the artist would like to have a skin coloured or green face with the same brightnesses for the expression, he has a really hard job on the C64. Edit: For your edit: It's all in this thread. Edit2: Like this image: Grey, purple & yellow in the face: Restriction or Intention? Edited October 16, 2009 by Irgendwer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If we all really cared about accuracy in our pictures, we wouldn't be fidgeting with 8-bits at all. It's cool to see what people can do, but it's not much of a reason to set up an old computer. When I see pictures on the 64 that have weird colors all over the place it's apparent that the artist is using colors for their relative intensity more than their color. In this way it's pseudo-monochrome technique and it allows for a lot of detail if you disregard the psychedelic aspect. It's sort of the 64's GTIA mode 9. On the Atari you sacrifice resolution to get fine shading and on the 64 you sacrifice control over the color. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) really? you KNOW this do u? even tho u didnt notice presumably that this pic is FLI and therefore could generate quite a few more available colours to make a pink from? why dont u wander off now and go try and do some real stuff with a 64 palette. then maybe u WILL "know" things for future reference. Steve Edited October 16, 2009 by STE'86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEtalGuy66 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Ok.. The atari has more standard pallette colors, and the C=64 has more standard color registers. Quite a few of you appear to REALLY know your shit, where your own respective preferred machines are concerned.. Instead of arguing these points into the ground, why don't you guys exchange source code and data, and challenge the other guy to produce a version of your game or demo on the opposite platform that equals (or bests) the original? This would be the ultimate "put up or shut up" contest, and the community would benefit by having some pretty top-quality ports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Ok.. The atari has more standard pallette colors, and the C=64 has more standard color registers. Quite a few of you appear to REALLY know your shit, where your own respective preferred machines are concerned.. Instead of arguing these points into the ground, why don't you guys exchange source code and data, and challenge the other guy to produce a version of your game or demo on the opposite platform that equals (or bests) the original? This would be the ultimate "put up or shut up" contest, and the community would benefit by having some pretty top-quality ports... YES I AM UP FOR THIS. which ones of the guys who have been arguing with me about colours for 2 days will also be up for this i wonder? what about it Irgendwer? or Emkay? or Atariksi? its put up or shut up time lets rock!!!!!!!! Steve Edited October 16, 2009 by STE'86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I know I'm lazy and don't have the time to finish it. Here a 10 min. work in G2F... well thanks for that. but if u re read my post u will see that u have just proved my point, when i said that picture couldnt actually be DRAWN BY AN ARTIST in native atari format WITHOUT the help of "wiring" from another format. 2 mins in photoshop indexed colour mode and a 64 palette: i can do it too. but this one COULD be drawn on a native 64 format. Steve The picture looks a bit better. but the "shit" is still there and the "white" now doesn't look like a lightning effect as it was supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I know I'm lazy and don't have the time to finish it. Here a 10 min. work in G2F... well thanks for that. but if u re read my post u will see that u have just proved my point, when i said that picture couldnt actually be DRAWN BY AN ARTIST in native atari format WITHOUT the help of "wiring" from another format. 2 mins in photoshop indexed colour mode and a 64 palette: i can do it too. but this one COULD be drawn on a native 64 format. Steve The picture looks a bit better. but the "shit" is still there and the "white" now doesn't look like a lightning effect as it was supposed to be. yep i agree the white highlight is too striking now. and if i was drawing it i would fade it to light grey then pink. BUT i can still draw it on a 64. which is more than u could do with your version on an a8. but see above if u fancy having a go????? Steve 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