ATARI 800 was the first computer in 1979 with native Y/C output

[Level42]

The PAL 600XL does have DIN monitor port, and the NTSC version was designed to have it(the footprints/traces for the components are there).

 

I think most of us know this. In fact, there was just one 600XL PCB (yes I know there were revisions), they simply left out the DIN connector and the extra parts for the monitor output on the NTSC version, just like they left out the channel-switch of the NTSC machines on the PAL version.

[HDTV1080P]

And stupidly, Atari dropped the Chroma signal off the DIN jack for the 1200XL and NTSC 800XL, and never even included the DIN at all for NTSC 600XL’s. It wasn’t until the XE line that they made Chroma/Luma a stock feature again.

The Atari 800/800XL/65XE/130XE all had luminance and chroma on the 5 pin DIN jack. However for some reason the Atari 800XL versions manufactured before August of 1984 did not offer it.

Edited July 20, 2018 by HDTV1080P

[+DrVenkman]

The Atari 800/800XL/65XE/130XE all had luminance and chroma on the 5 pin DIN jack. However for some reason the Atari 800XL versions manufactured before August of 1984 did not offer it.

 

Is there a source for that date? No NTSC 800XL I've ever run across has Chroma on the DIN.

[HDTV1080P]

I'd comment but I'm still laughing about the Coleco Adam being more powerful than the 800...

Just because something is newer, doesn't mean more powerful necessarily, and the Coleco Adam could be the poster child for this...Ironically, the 5200, just an Atari 400 in console cloths, was released to compete with the Coleovision, Coleco in turn turns the Colecovision into a computer to compete with the Atari 8-bit and C64 lines! Both are great consoles and computers, but not a chance in hell the Adam is more powerful, spec-wise or in practice.

 

The Atari 800 was way ahead of it's time in many areas, others took years to "catch up" and even then they fell short in many areas (custom chips). The Adam is just so unique that it's a wonderful machine to collect for and have in a collection

The Coleco ADAM has 32 sprites with 256K x 192 resolution, Z80A at 3.58Mhz, 80KB of ram (64KB useable) and expandable to 2MB. Coleco ADAM has 4 expansion card slots (3 internal and 1 external). The original ATARI 800 has a MOS 6502 at 1.7Mhz, 160 x 96 color resolution . Besides the Y/C technology on the ATARI, the Coleco ADAM has better specs.

Edited July 20, 2018 by HDTV1080P

[HDTV1080P]

 

Uhh.....maybe read some threads a bit more around here....

 

Today there is SOPHIA already, which produces component or even better RGB and there's another SOPHIA version that produces DVI.

SOPHIA produces a TOTALLY amazing RGB signal and looks PERFECT on a good RGB capable CRT TV or monitor. I've never seen anything better.

 

S-video was nice BITD yes....but RGB is the closest you can get to what the CRT really needs, in fact it is the BARE signal a CRT needs.

 

If digital is your cup of tea, go with the DVI version and you'll have digital quality from source to display.

That is awesome that someone created a DVI add on board for some of the Atari computers. With a DVI to HDMI adapter the ATARI computers can be connected to a modern display with HDMI. However there are many videogame systems and computer systems that can be upgraded to have a HDMI output.

 

The cool thing about the ATARI 800 is it was the first computer that offered native Y/C output back in 1979 when that feature was very rare even on computer monitors.

[HDTV1080P]

No, I get all that. I know the Atari 800 came out before the 64. I was responding to the OP who was touting the Coleco Adam's features - just adding the 64 to the list of computers that came out before the Adam with separated chroma/luma.

The original August 1982 Commodore 64 computers only offered composite video on its 5 pin DIN jack. In the spring of 1983 Commodore came out with a new motherboard for the Commodore 64 (250407 motherboard). These new Commodore 64 motherboards had a 8 pin DIN jack with the Y/C feature. So ATARI had the Y/C feature 4 years before Commodore offered it. The Commodore 128 also offers the Y/C feature.

 

As far as I am aware only the ATARI and Commodore computers offer Y/C technology which is better then composite video. S-Video launched in 1987 on TV/monitors because of the launch of JVC's S-VHS system. Later on other products like Hi-8, ED-Beta, a few Laserdisc players, etc used S-Video technology. S-Video jacks and cables was designed for home entertainment products like S-VHS, later on third party companies started making S-Video cables for ATARI and Commodore computers.

 

Component video, VGA, S-VGA, DVI, and HDMI are better quality connections when compared to S-Video. Today 100% of modern 4K Ultra HD and 1080P computer monitors use HDMI only or HDMI and displayport options.

Edited July 20, 2018 by HDTV1080P

[HDTV1080P]

The VCR only had composite out but the 800 had lovely Y/C. Still have the 1702 but the VCR is long gone. Top-loader with fake woodgrain case and matte silver plastic face. Had them all plus an ATR8000 set up on a desk. My roommate said it looked like mission control!

The S-Video jack was created in 1987 for the S-VHS format. Hi-8 used it also. Later on ATARI and Commodore owners started using S-Video feature with special cables. Before the S-Video jack one had to own a special computer monitor like the Commodore 1702.

[HDTV1080P]

 

heck even the vic20 had y/c output

The VIC 20 only had a 5 pin DIN jack with composite video output. No Y/C.

Edited July 20, 2018 by HDTV1080P

[Osgeld]

The Coleco ADAM has 32 sprites with 256K x 192 resolution, Z80A at 3.58Mhz, 80KB of ram (64KB useable) and expandable to 2MB. Coleco ADAM has 4 expansion card slots (3 internal and 1 external). The original ATARI 800 has a MOS 6502 at 1.7Mhz, 160 x 96 color resolution . Besides the Y/C technology on the ATARI, the Coleco ADAM has better specs.

 

not withstanding that a z80 takes more cycles to do the same, its been argued (to death so lets not start) that a 4Mhz Z80 and a 1Mhz 6502 are pretty close, then add in that the atari runs its 6502 at nearly 2mhz ... (z80 is really kind of a shit chip if one really looks at it)

 

also where do you get the 800's or any atari's max resolution is 160x96? first link on google for atari computer graphics modes says 160 x 192 with 4 colors

Edited July 20, 2018 by Osgeld

[+Stephen]

Yes - we can also put colour on a 320*239 screen without too much effort. Not even getting what is possible with interlaced modes.

[Osgeld]

Yes - we can also put colour on a 320*239 screen without too much effort. Not even getting what is possible with interlaced modes.

 

yea I wasn't even going to go into the non official graphics modes as I am sure there's some smartass saying they did 64k colors on a TMS video chip using some shakey display flipping blah blah blah

 

with artifacting and dithering patterns I can get more than 16 colors on a apple II in HI-RES mode though and thats 140x290 (roughly in color, with a mono monitor its 280x192) and those things use a shift register for video generation

Edited July 21, 2018 by Osgeld

[Kyle22]

I had an ADAM. I love Z-80, but I hate that package they put it in. Those DDP tapes are sucky slow., Faster than a 1010, but slow.

 

If only an 80 column monitor.... Their word processor wasn't that great, but it would have been useable in 80 columns.

 

If only we could have a fast enogh SIO connection to the ATR or Indus to do high speed graphics. That would require a parallel connection, though.

 

The true Z80 solution is going to be in one of the new 1090 style expansion boxes.

 

[HDTV1080P]

 

not withstanding that a z80 takes more cycles to do the same, its been argued (to death so lets not start) that a 4Mhz Z80 and a 1Mhz 6502 are pretty close, then add in that the atari runs its 6502 at nearly 2mhz ... (z80 is really kind of a shit chip if one really looks at it)

 

also where do you get the 800's or any atari's max resolution is 160x96? first link on google for atari computer graphics modes says 160 x 192 with 4 colors

The 160 x 96 color resolution came from the following website

 

http://www.oldcomputers.net/atari800.html

[+Nezgar]

The 160 x 96 color resolution came from the following website

 

http://www.oldcomputers.net/atari800.html

Ok... not technically correct, but probably based on old documentation because BASIC didn't support Gr.15 natively on the original 800. The hardware was still fully capable, and BASIC could do it with manual custom display lists. Maybe that was just a limitation of BASIC Rev A, added to B and C.

 

People had developed and published hacks to attain that mode in BASIC back then though, some calling it "Graphics 7+": https://www.atariarchives.org/creativeatari/Artifacting_With_Graphics_7Plus.php

 

Edit: according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_BASIC- "Some of the graphics modes of the underlying hardware are also not directly supported in BASIC, notably what came to be known as "GRAPHICS 7.5", as it offered resolution halfway between GRAPHICS 7 and GRAPHICS 8. Support was added to the XL/XE operating system, accessible from BASIC as GRAPHICS 15."

 

So can Rev A BASIC use Gr.15 on an XL/XE?

[+DrVenkman]

 

So can Rev A BASIC use Gr.15 on an XL/XE?

 

Yes. I just tried a Rev A BASIC .CAR image in Altirra with an XL OS selected. Worked fine. The same with OSb gives ERROR - 145.

[_The Doctor__]

Ok... not technically correct, but probably based on old documentation because BASIC didn't support Gr.15 natively on the original 800. The hardware was still fully capable, and BASIC could do it with manual custom display lists. Maybe that was just a limitation of BASIC Rev A, added to B and C.

 

People had developed and published hacks to attain that mode in BASIC back then though, some calling it "Graphics 7+": https://www.atariarchives.org/creativeatari/Artifacting_With_Graphics_7Plus.php

 

Edit: according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_BASIC- "Some of the graphics modes of the underlying hardware are also not directly supported in BASIC, notably what came to be known as "GRAPHICS 7.5", as it offered resolution halfway between GRAPHICS 7 and GRAPHICS 8. Support was added to the XL/XE operating system, accessible from BASIC as GRAPHICS 15."

 

So can Rev A BASIC use Gr.15 on an XL/XE?

I am certain with technical explanation, and era correct example software, the corrections would be made