Atari GFX programs history

[beastie]

I've found a very interresting article here:

http://www.asterius.com/atari/

Have a nice reading, if you don't know this article yet. A lot of interesting facts and some nice pictures. I liked the story behind Spectrum 512 the most.

[bullis1]

That site is an old favourite of mine. It has lots of very interesting reading!

[simonsunnyboy]

Too Tom Hudson centric for my taste....a proper history should include other memorable paint and art packages too.

[bullis1]

Too Tom Hudson centric for my taste....a proper history should include other memorable paint and art packages too.

But this doesn't exist (yet?)...

[simonsunnyboy]

Time to write one then
Starting with Dr Doodle up to Escape Paint and other Falcon packages....might be an interesting research subject for someone interested in graphics software.

[Marakatti]

Maybe a nice project for ROWBEARTOE

[simonsunnyboy]

Maybe a nice project for ROWBEARTOE

Exactly - maybe better than posting useless PCS shots

[beastie]

Maybe a nice project for ROWBEARTOE

Exactly - maybe better than posting useless PCS shots

Come on... I don't think these postings are useless. At least as useless as 80% discussions here

I'm almost sure, that ROWBEARTOE is preparing something connected with the Atari ST and we can only see some side effects of his work. Maybe he is even writing something like the Atari ST graphic applications history. Am I right?

[Marakatti]

I also don't think they are useless. It's always nice to see someone pushing ST graphics no matter if they are demos or single images

[simonsunnyboy]

The problem is, due to the way Photochrome works, you have no benefits from showing "capabilities" as those screenshots can't save the proper interlace and palette switching effects. Posting a shot of a PCS is as good as posting the original JPG/PNG/TIFF....
PCS only shows its potential when viewed on real ST with TV or monitor connected.

[beastie]

The problem is, due to the way Photochrome works, you have no benefits from showing "capabilities" as those screenshots can't save the proper interlace and palette switching effects. Posting a shot of a PCS is as good as posting the original JPG/PNG/TIFF....
PCS only shows its potential when viewed on real ST with TV or monitor connected.

Yes, of course. That is why I asked Robert to send me the originals. I think we could ask him to post the pictures in original format here as the attachments, but personaly I forgot to do that As I got the originals I wanted.

Inspired by the pictures posted here in - so called - PC formats (JPGs/PNGs), it's just a reference. Thanks to these pictures I wanted to see them on a real thing. It's not a bad idea to post the reference pictures here. Of course you can appreciate Spectrum or Photochrome pictures on the real hardware only, but you can always just have a general impression thanks to JPGs/PNGs posted here.

The result of ROB's postings is that I'm also making some experiments with the graphics (Spectrum 512 only for now) It's nice!

[ROWBEARTOE]

The problem is, due to the way Photochrome works, you have no benefits from showing "capabilities" as those screenshots can't save the proper interlace and palette switching effects. Posting a shot of a PCS is as good as posting the original JPG/PNG/TIFF....
PCS only shows its potential when viewed on real ST with TV or monitor connected.

The problem with posting anything with today's computers is that the monitors work differn't. PC montiors today be it on LCD or CRT's use pixels in the shape of a box instead of a circle making 320x200 pictures look very blocky and flat out ugly compared to the RGB analog displays. Not to forget all of of pictures are squished- 320x200 needs to be 320x240 for the correct size. I found a spectrum viewer on the PC that works in DOS! that actually displays this correctly, but again the square pixels of today's monitors make everything look blocky.

I strongly encourage anyone if they can to view pictures or demos on the real machines if possible. BUT, at least everyone will get an idea of how things looked if all they have is a PC. That's why I'm not a fan of emulators. And not to get too off subject, but that's why I don't like playing retro games on current PC's and consoles. HDTV's and controllers don't do 80's games justice. You need the real joystick and the displays they were designed for.

So even if you made a converter program on the PC that emulated interlace and palette switching (like emualtors do) it still wouldn't look the same. Like coca-cola you can't beat the real thing! =)

[nativ]

The basic rendering technology in that prototype materials editor - minus the Spectrum 512 code - ended up in 3D Studio Release 1.

Mark Kimball went even further: he designed and built his own graphics framebuffer for the ST that could display a 512 x 512

Be nice to see this software, and patched to use the Falcons graphics. nova,etc.

An odd article really. . . to go so far and then? Stop! Must have caught the vaporware bug.

Bye
Ashley

[jd]

I strongly encourage anyone if they can to view pictures or demos on the real machines if possible. BUT, at least everyone will get an idea of how things looked if all they have is a PC. That's why I'm not a fan of emulators. And not to get too off subject, but that's why I don't like playing retro games on current PC's and consoles. HDTV's and controllers don't do 80's games justice. You need the real joystick and the displays they were designed for.

So even if you made a converter program on the PC that emulated interlace and palette switching (like emualtors do) it still wouldn't look the same. Like coca-cola you can't beat the real thing! =)

Totally agree, playing kick-off on steem just isn't the same as on my ST with crappy, battered joystick, long loading times and fuzzy TV.

and i'm being serious....

[ROWBEARTOE]

I strongly encourage anyone if they can to view pictures or demos on the real machines if possible. BUT, at least everyone will get an idea of how things looked if all they have is a PC. That's why I'm not a fan of emulators. And not to get too off subject, but that's why I don't like playing retro games on current PC's and consoles. HDTV's and controllers don't do 80's games justice. You need the real joystick and the displays they were designed for.

So even if you made a converter program on the PC that emulated interlace and palette switching (like emualtors do) it still wouldn't look the same. Like coca-cola you can't beat the real thing! =)

Totally agree, playing kick-off on steem just isn't the same as on my ST with crappy, battered joystick, long loading times and fuzzy TV.

and i'm being serious....

hAhahah- batterd joystick?!?! fuzzy TV (TV? who used the ST with a TV?) No monitor no 80 colums- no med res- little point in using it. But I suppose if you don't have the right equipment- i.e good joystick, good mouse, good monitor, good computer- then.... well... it's just not the same.

[simonsunnyboy]

There a lot of people who did use their STs with fuzzy TVs in the past - and some still do.
I agree that ST-MED is a bit unpleasant but one can use it (I did for ages) if desired.
Actually a proper TV with SCART beats the poo of it for sure

[ROWBEARTOE]

There a lot of people who did use their STs with fuzzy TVs in the past - and some still do.
I agree that ST-MED is a bit unpleasant but one can use it (I did for ages) if desired.
Actually a proper TV with SCART beats the poo of it for sure

In the United States only the 1985 520ST came with an RF modulator. In 1986 the 1040ST didn't include one nor did the 1987 Mega ST computers. It wasn't until later that ST computers came equiped with RF modulators. We had to buy a composite adaptor if we wanted to record our ST. But again, medium resolution was unabareable to really use without a monitor. Perhaps for games like Megaroids =). I used to go to MIDI maze conventions and everyone I knew in America had monitors. Few if any had monochrome- but then my age group loved games, animations, graphics, and music. But hey computers were expensive and a monitor sure wasn't cheap. But I couldn't imagine using an ST without one.

[simonsunnyboy]

Yeah, i forgot: Atari started their mismarketing in their own backyard
In Europe Atari concentrated to sell high volumes of the STs. It was necessary to allow users to use their existing TV if desired to cut down the cost of the machines for the end user. Many gamers bought STs with RF modulators because they simply couldn't afford a proper monitor and had to use their existing TV sets.

[simonsunnyboy]

Or more precisely: they preferred to buy the SM124 as their proper monitor and wanted to have the RF for casual gaming.