 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Kinda like the way many old 8-bit home computers have different CPU
>> speed depending on whether it's PAL or NTSC...)
>
> Not CPU speed, screen refresh rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C64
"CPU: MOS Technology 6510 @ 1.02 MHz (NTSC) / 0.985 MHz (PAL)"
> The screen refresh rate in PAL areas is 50 FPS because the frequency
> of the alternate current from the wall socket is 50 Hz. In NTSC areas
> the frequency is 60 Hz, and thus the screen refresh rate is 60 FPS.
I'm guessing the variance is due to the need of the video subsystem to
access the framebuffer at a specific rate, hence the RAM data bus needs
to be an integral multiple of the scanrate or something...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And then there was AMOS (AMiga OS). I forget how many different editions
> were produced - AMOS, Easy AMOS, AMOS Professional, etc. In spite of the
> name, it wasn't actually an OS at all. It was a a programming language.
>
> When you buy AMOS Professional, what you get is
>
> - An interpretter for the AMOS language.
> - An extensive IDE.
> - A set of multimedia tools inclusing almost everything but the kitchen
> sink, *all* written in AMOS itself.
> - No less than *seven disks* stacked full of multimedia files and demo
> programs.
>
> Technically, AMOS is just another dialect of BASIC. It doesn't have line
> numbers, does have GOTO and GOSUB, and has procedures and functions,
> uses "$" and "#" to distinguish variable datatypes, and IIRC has local
> variables if you want them. The core language is no more powerful than
> that.
>
> However, it has VERY strong multimedia capabilities. If you imagine the
> most feature-encrusted lump of software possible, AMOS was like that,
> but with bells on.
...so basically, AMOS was a programming language that utterly *sucked*,
together with an absolutely kick-arse set of multimedia tools and with
killer easy of use. Kind of like VB I guess...
At the time, BASIC was the most powerful programming language I knew.
And boy did I love AMOS! Never got a huge amount *done* with it, but I
spent countless hours tinkering. Looking back on it, it truly was the
most feature-encrusted lump of lead imaginable! Occasionally it would
even malfunction slightly - nearly unheard of for commercial software.
(In fairness, it worked better once I got a harddrive.)
I do still sometimes miss the flexibility of just being able to say
"PLOT 7, 3, 11" and write a pixel to the screen. It's *way* more
complicated than that these days. Kinda puts you off writing anything
graphical...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-Jul-08 21:26, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Really? De facto? I mean, I know it was used by a few people, but I
>>> didn't think it had reached the level of "standard". (But obviously,
>>> I don't work in TV.)
>>
>> At that time no other machine came close to broadcast quality nor was
>> there hardware genlock support on another machine (at least for an
>> affordable prize), so anybody who did anything with TV used one. Just
>> as the Mac was the standard for DTP and (I think) the Atari for MIDI.
>
> Heh. Well OK. Personally my Amiga was my introduction to MIDI. ;-)
Yes, but you are not a professional musician.
> As an aside: It's amazing how music suddenly sounds "professional" when
> played using a sequencer, so that by definition it has perfect timing.
See, that's what I mean, professionals never use perfect timing. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:50:07 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scott com> did
> spake, saying:
>
>>> The real point is more that on a PC, just switching from one window to
>>> another always seemed to take forever, whereas on an Amiga it was
>>> instantaneous unless the machine was under heavy load.
>>
>> Yeh, I remember my friend had a 33 MHz PC, and just closing a window it
>> took several seconds for his desktop wallpaper to repaint itself, slowly
>> scanning down the screen line-by-line.
>
> Another obvious case of False Memory Syndrome.
I definitely remember Windows 98 slowly redrawing the desktop as if it was
raytracing the damned wallpaper, while the hard disk made horrible
insane-seeking noises.
But I'm sure that was due to using more RAM than I should on a low-on-RAM
machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The Amiga was the de facto standard for television quality broadcasting,
>> as many have also mentioned.
>
> Really? De facto? I mean, I know it was used by a few people, but I didn't
> think it had reached the level of "standard". (But obviously, I don't work
> in TV.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Toaster
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
>> In effect, the computer doesn't boost the blue channel, it uses a
>> damned "nonlinear colourspace transformations".
>
> My point is still that you can't reover what isn't there any more.
>
Right, but the information is still there, and so it is recoverable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ah but was the Artworks-derived Xara for the PC really comparable to
> Artworks on the Acorn or is it just another Blender to Paint comparison?
Well the GUI was pretty much identical, and I assume the backend rendering
code was following similar algorithms, maybe even sharing a lot of the
code - I don't know.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My point is still that you can't reover what isn't there any more.
>>
>
> Right, but the information is still there, and so it is recoverable.
Heh. Next thing you'll be telling me that you can take a photograph that
has faded to a plain yellow sheet of paper and somehow "recover" the
image that used to be on it. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My point is still that you can't reover what isn't there any more.
Of course, but there is still plenty of information there in that photo,
even in the blue channel. Attached is the histogram plot for the colour
channels (R top, B bottom), looks like plenty of mid-level blue still there
to me, in fact all pixels have a fair amount of blue in them.
If I just shift the blues a bit brighter, and the reds a bit darker, I get a
pretty good output, but of course as Sabrina said you can do much more funky
transforms to get near perfect looking results. If you know how the colours
shift during ageing, you simply tell the software one colour that you know
should be white, and it will fix the rest. Actually Paint Shop Pro has a
"fade correction" option, and it works very well on this photo.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'image4.png' (15 KB)
Preview of image 'image4.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> My point is still that you can't reover what isn't there any more.
>
> Of course, but there is still plenty of information there in that photo,
> even in the blue channel. Attached is the histogram plot for the colour
> channels (R top, B bottom), looks like plenty of mid-level blue still
> there to me, in fact all pixels have a fair amount of blue in them.
>
> If I just shift the blues a bit brighter, and the reds a bit darker, I
> get a pretty good output.
All I know is that when I take a dark image and try to make it brighter,
it comes out hopelessly noisy.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
