Moderators: Mug UK, moondog/.tSCc., [ProToS], lp, Moderator Team
Zamuel_a wrote:Since HAM mode is only for static images or animations in best case, there must be a lot of ways to produce better images on an Falcon. By just flicking between two 64k images you get millions of colors and takes no CPU speed at all.
Are there any viewers that do this or did all of them just settle with 64k images?
Since HAM mode is only for static images or animations in best case, there must be a lot of ways to produce better images on an Falcon. By just flicking between two 64k images you get millions of colors and takes no CPU speed at all.
Are there any viewers that do this or did all of them just settle with 64k images?
Frank B wrote:Ham 8 is only useful for pre calculated static animations. Compared to 16 bpp it's a bad joke IMHO. God knows why Commodore didn't go high colour.
Zamuel_a wrote:I think 16 bit chunky graphic mode is much better than HAM8, even that every Amiga enthusiast say the opposite
Zamuel_a wrote:HAM was a clever idea to get more colors on screen on an Amiga 500, but for the 1200 it's less than optimal.
I am not sure but I think that they want in one point of time to remove HAM from silicon (not sure why) but it would leave whole in chip(maybe it is an urban legend but I am pretty sure that I read this somewhere)
ctirad wrote:Frank B wrote:Ham 8 is only useful for pre calculated static animations. Compared to 16 bpp it's a bad joke IMHO. God knows why Commodore didn't go high colour.
That would require a major chipset redesign. The Commodore was probably not in a good shape to afford that.
dml wrote:Zamuel_a wrote:I think 16 bit chunky graphic mode is much better than HAM8, even that every Amiga enthusiast say the opposite
Yeah, anyone who's a fan of moving graphics finds HAM less than optimal
mc6809e wrote:dml wrote:Zamuel_a wrote:I think 16 bit chunky graphic mode is much better than HAM8, even that every Amiga enthusiast say the opposite
Yeah, anyone who's a fan of moving graphics finds HAM less than optimal
At least the hardware sprites are still usable, though small -- just 128 pixels of sprite data per scanline.
Had sprites been 32 pixels wide instead of just 16 there might have been a few more HAM games.
mc6809e wrote:dml wrote:Zamuel_a wrote:I think 16 bit chunky graphic mode is much better than HAM8, even that every Amiga enthusiast say the opposite
Yeah, anyone who's a fan of moving graphics finds HAM less than optimal
At least the hardware sprites are still usable, though small -- just 128 pixels of sprite data per scanline.
Had sprites been 32 pixels wide instead of just 16 there might have been a few more HAM games.
Frank B wrote:mc6809e wrote:At least the hardware sprites are still usable, though small -- just 128 pixels of sprite data per scanline.
Had sprites been 32 pixels wide instead of just 16 there might have been a few more HAM games.
64 wide I believe and not 128. How many are available with scrolling extra fetch and fmode set to max? One 3 colour (3 + transp) I think?
My memory is fuzzy on the topic.
calimero wrote:Bte 128 pixels per scanline is more than 1/3 pixels in 320x200 resolution! I would not say it is small, or bad?
in practice, the Atari ST and Amiga were often nearly the same.
ctirad wrote:galahad wrote:Its not that people don't take the A1200 seriously as a stock machine, its still pretty capable,
No so pretty. The main problem is the limited RAM size for a prodution work in workbench. It was limited like 512kB A500 before.
Er, that wasn't a problem at all. Unless you were seriously into productivity software, how much ram was available for Workbench and system was irrelevant.
If you were seriously into productivity software and were able to afford to buy some of the VERY expensive programs to use, you certainly could and would be able to afford to upgrade your Amiga A1200 to best take adavantage of it.Very few Amiga owners have an 060 card. I would say the most common configuration is A1200+Fastram+030card+hard drive, and thats decent enough.
I know very few Amiga users which don't have 060 or at least 040. 030 + FastRAM was typical 1990s setup.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest