DimensionX
-
Content Count
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DimensionX
-
-
And I am not impressed by any of the A8 screen you posted until now, they have nothing but rainbows.So I asked you for some pictures to compete with this hires ones from the c64. I know that they are very good A8 bitmap art around(g2f) they are good for hardware and can have nice colours but you can have any of these c64 pictures on the A8 without great restrictions, starting with the resolution and then with detail.
Why don't try it live?
http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/
Homesoft
http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6
It's easy to set up, you will be running a virtual Atari in no time. Then you can check out for yourself what an Atari 800 is capable of, and what it's not capable of. There isn't such thing as a "best computer", just different computers.
And you missed the point, Atari doesn't need a single raster to produce more rich and vivid colours. Check today postings in this thread.
-
Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.
Let's be honest.
If we're being honest, 320x200x16 (and in case people are wondering, those pictures haven't been "deinterlaced", those are static C64 screens) is significantly better for graphics quality than 80x96x256 with some scanline distortion. Here's an APAC pic i did a few years ago...
...nowhere near as good looking.
At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie.And your decision isn't final so please, in the middle of a programming sub forum, stop trying to dictate like that.
Well, that's my personal opinion, no matter what you or anyone else say. To think that one single computer is best at everything it's plain stupid.
Better then to be realistic...
-
A8 best for graphics? not in all areas certainly:
Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.
Let's be honest.
At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.
You see, i'm not biased at all.
Which computer is best?
It depends on what you want.
These are hires pictures. If you can't see that there must be some kind of problem. Can you post a gif of 256 colour pictures from the A8 to compare?
Yes, i saw it was high resolution pics. But nothing you can use in games anyway.
The best way to watch Atari art is to download WinAtari800 and to visit Homesofts page. There's several slidshows av Technicolour Dream pictures in the demo section.
Atari ST managed to show pics with 19.200 colours...
Of a palette of over 32.000 colours
Using Photochrome.
Of a limit of 16 on screen colours and a palette of 512 colours.
So, i'm not easily impressed.
-
A8 best for graphics? not in all areas certainly:
Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream.
Let's be honest.
At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at.
You see, i'm not biased at all.
Which computer is best?
It depends on what you want.
-
I'm not talking "sprites" but "colours". And the quality of them.
And that's the problem, you're using colours to justify your claim of better graphics and they're not one and the same - having more colours doesn't automatically make for better graphics and there are other factors involved.
Edit: here's a thought, if the best 8-bit machine is the one with the most colours, the winner is probably the Amstrad CPC Plus since it has a palette of 4,096 - by your "logic", the superior 8-bit is built by a company that most people at Atari Age probably never heard of.
No, i don't. Just in the colour area. Not in graphics.
What i'm trying to say is that you can't say that C64 was the best computer for graphics. I say that C64 is better on some things, Atari on other things. That's why i will call it a tie.
-
ZX Spectrum almost always uses a higher resolution too because lack of different graphic modes, then it uses the bright command to get more colours on screen. Everything you see is in 256*192 pixels while the C64 version often use a much lower resolution. You can easily see that on the zig zag lines in the C64 versions of these games.
Please stop trying to bloody lecture me about how these machines work because, since i've developed and released games for all three, i sure as hell don't need the "how these work" speeches.
To reach spectrums resolution you will have to get rid of some colours. That's why both C64 and Atari lost some colours when trying to reproduce some of the spectrum games like Head over Heels for exemple.The C64 doesn't have the same colours as the Spectrum so some have to be swapped over, but the amount of colours actually in use can remain the same because both machines have the same attribute-based mode when the C64 is in high res. For example...
...and the program version is here.
Spectrum has much sharper colours thanks to a pallette of only 8 colours where bright commande givs some extra nuances. And that is the big problem with C64 too, you can't use any fine nuances, like on Atari.
Is it your conversion?
Great job.
Have you seen Xenon on C64 and Spectrum?
It doesn't look even near the ST and Amiga version. Atari 800 could do it, but not C64 and Spectrum because ST uses gradiant nuances for the graphics and the computer must have a big palette to choose from for being able to recreate the game.
-
No tie,
((sprites moving one at pixel resolution even in MCM) && (8 sprites either in MCM or Hires mode) && (Attributes either in char mode or bitmap mode) && (mix hires chars and MC chars in one mode) &&( 256 chars) && (half colour clock smooth scrolling) &&(16 colour palette)) != (more colours(either 128, 256, 512... 4096) when they cannot be placed freely in a bitmap or char mode).
Got it?
Even if both computers just use 7 colours for a game, Atari has so much more rich and vivid colours. C64 can't even come close reproducing the colors found in the Atari versions. So i see no competition at all in the colour area, Atari is superior to both C64 and Spectrum an any other 8 bit computer in that area. Thanks to much bigger pallette to choose from and som special hardware modes.
Se my earlier screenshot of the game H.E.R.O for exemple.
C64 pales right away in the colour area.
I'm not talking "sprites" but "colours". And the quality of them.
-
Rastercolour bars <> free colour use.
The c64 can have reproduce all those spectrum screens even if with different colours and even can have more colour combinations per attribute cell. The A8 can't not even come close.
If you want me to say that the A8 has a much bigger palette and can have nice rainbow effects, you have it, I didn't deny it anyway.
A sad thing that we didn't see any older commercial games doing that then?
Atari 800 did it all the time.
And you say that i'm biased?
To make a game look like that on C64 is to dream because Atari has much clearer colours.
Not even the C64 demos looks anything like that.
You are judging the A8 better just because of still screens or games using those rasterbars, and that subjective parameter of yours "clear colours". Better not mention dreams... there would be possible to produce a huge list of c64 games that it would be utter utopical to think they can be produced for the A8.
Nope because many games has moving colours that looks like that. Try Dimension X for exemple.
C64 handles sprites better?
Atari is the better computer for rich and clear colours?
A tie?
-
Rastercolour bars <> free colour use.
The c64 can have reproduce all those spectrum screens even if with different colours and even can have more colour combinations per attribute cell. The A8 can't not even come close.
If you want me to say that the A8 has a much bigger palette and can have nice rainbow effects, you have it, I didn't deny it anyway.
A sad thing that we didn't see any older commercial games doing that then?
Atari 800 did it all the time.
And you say that i'm biased?
To make a game look like that on C64 is to dream because Atari has much clearer colours.
Not even the C64 demos looks anything like that.
Amiga is the only computer who could produce colours like that too.
-
The c64 in hires bitmap mode is the best of the three computers colour use wise. The A8 hires mode is completely monochrome unless sprites are used dor some touches of different color here and there(not that freely). The spectrum can only mix in the same 8x8 cell two colours of the same brightness(TMR already adressed this above), the C64 with its 320x200 pixels can used any of two of it's 16 colours in a 8x8 cell. So even comparing the c64 and the spectrum using this mode, the c64 has two advantages, more resolution, 320x200 vs 256,192, and can use more colour combinations per 8x8 cell
. Better not compare the c64 and A8 on hires bitmap mode.DimensonX without wanting to be rude, I think or your are completly biased against the c64 or you don't know what you are taking about. Number of Colours in the palette is not all, it's how they can be used.
Just in case I feel the need to clarify, I own all these three computers and I am fond of all of them.
Agree, it's how to use them, and the quality of them, and the number of them. Alternate Reality.
C64 version
PNG, 652x1048px, 83 KB (0.08 MB)Atari version
PNG, 684x744px, 61 KB (0.06 MB)I like all three computers too, but it's no question about that Atari was the best computer in the colour area.
-
i think the ones with the better drawn graphics look best and that's been my entire bloody point. The choice of colours has nothing to do with why most of those screenshots look better on the Spectrum (i prefer Cybernoid on the C64 personally but that's personal taste for you) and it's all about the actual definitions of the graphics and how the colours are used. A lot of those "cleaner colours" on the Spectrum are selected as concessions rather than artistic choices, since it's not possible to mix two colours of the same BRIGHTness in a single attribute cell, if you're already using dark yellow for foreground it's not possible to select light red as background and you have to go with the dark version.
The only thing preventing the C64 copying those Spectrum graphics pixel for pixel is specific colours in the palette (the pixels would be right, the colours changed out) - the A8 wouldn't be able to replicate most of what is there.
ZX Spectrum almost always uses a higher resolution too because lack of different graphic modes, then it uses the bright command to get more colours on screen. Everything you see is in 256*192 pixels while the C64 version often use a much lower resolution. You can easily see that on the zig zag lines in the C64 versions of these games. To reach spectrums resolution you will have to get rid of some colours. That's why both C64 and Atari lost some colours when trying to reproduce some of the spectrum games like Head over Heels for exemple. Resolution was more importand then colours. Head Over Heels is completly in monochrome on Atari 800 using the highest resolution.
PNG, 684x996px, 67 KB (0.07 MB) -
And there's that "cleaner" rubbish again...
Is that so?
Which version do you think look best?
C64 version to the left, or ZX Spectrum version to the right?
-
The game Stealth from Broderbound.
C64 version on top
Here's a typical exempel of how gradiant colours often was used in the Atari version of the game that C64 never could produce. In the C64 version there's a set of different colours instead. Atari's colour capacity was often used to enhance the games atmosphere.
The Game H.E.R.O from Activision. C64 version is built on the Colecovision version of the game. But look at the colours and compare it to the Atari version of the game. Flip between the two for a fast comparison. The colour in the Atari version is so more rich and vivid even if the Atari version do not use more colours.
C64 version
PNG, 652x836px, 80 KB (0.08 MB)Atari verson
PNG, 684x996px, 59 KB (0.06 MB)Between us, most colours in the limited C64 palette was okey, except brown, that really looks aweful. They could have been choosing a lighter brown nuance for C64's palette.
You often regocgnize the games in no time because of the aweful brown.
-
I'm speaking of "colours" and the quality of them. The games looked like that on Atari already 1982 because of the hardware. When C64 had a single colour Atari used the rainbow effekt used in sooo many games. Check out the game "Dimension X" for Atari 800 via AtariWin800 to see what i mean. Impossible to do such thing on C64.
And as i've already said repeatedly, just colours don't equate to the entire graphical experience; how you can use those colours is just as important and the C64 is more able on that front, that's why games like Stormlord look like this...
...and 50FPS half colour clock scrolling, whilst Hawkmoon (which uses graphics stolen from Stormlord and Hawkeye on the C64) looks like this...
...and is flick screen.
I thrust you when you say it's impossible to do that on an Atari. But the Atari games looked stunning already at 1983.Just sticking a rainbow through one of the playfield colours doesn't automatically make a game look "stunning", if that were true anybody could write "stunning" A8 games just by throwing any old junk up and locking up the CPU for a couple of hundred scanlines. It's not even viable to do that in many circumstances - even if there were enough processor time to do it, trying to rainbow split something like Zybex would affect all the sprites as well and would look rubbish.
Funny that you mention that. ZX Spectrum won many reviews, because "lack of colour". The machines limits was in many cases it's strength.
The spectrum version looked a lot cleaner because lack of colours and a higher resolution. The colour clashing problem forced the programmers to make the games in monochrome with a colourful status display instead.
Goodnight.
-
There is only one more computer who can produce that type of clear colours, Amiga.
Comparing "bang per bit" (bang per buck)
i would say the C64 is one of the best machines ever.
Its no good having all those colours if you can't use them well - halftoning with the c64 palette is IMO just as usefull as having the wider a800 h/w palette.
a "photo to tilemap" converter will 'prove' this
the C64 is a more impressive use of 8bits than the Amiga is of 16bits.
other designs got more out of similar memory & bandwidths.
[the amiga was a truly amazing home-COMPUTER though.. probably the best ever]
It was possible to paint with 256 colours at the same time on Atari already 1986, thanks to Red Rat's Technicolor Dream.
And yes, C64 was a stunning computer.
Ooops, the time is almost midnight, i'll better log out.
Always a pleasure talking to retro people.
-
Not to be rude, but...
I can't be honest and say that C64 has better graphics then Atari 800. No way. I compared the same games on both machines several times.
Ok.
Show me screenshots (or mockup proof of concept) of Atari800 R-Type, Salamander, Armalyte.
I conceed: the Atari800 might be able to display superior STATIC images, or 'demos'
but until I see the above, I will continue to beleive the C64 is the superior *games* machine.
The clear advantage is in the data encoding per screen. One fixed 16 color palette, with many independant 3 color elements, with some shared+unique colors
None of those games were made for Atari 800, but if i find some remake i will post at screenshot of it.
Those static screens that you see in the forum, is moving in reality. Yes, all those colours is animated in the emulator.
There is only one more computer who can produce that type of clear colours, Amiga.
-
Hmmm, Can we make it a tie?
Atari is better in the colour area because of a much larger palette and some great hardware modes.
C64 is better at handling sprites
1-1?
-
5 colors?
is that 2bpp tiles, 4 colors across most of the screen, with 1 bit selecting an alternate color for some of the tiles?
was it 1byte per tile (7bits tile index, with the upper bit selecting the alternate color) or what
It's the latter, one byte per character with 7 bits selecting the actual definition (so only 128 characters in a font compared to 256 on the C64) and the top bit selects one of two playfield colours for the %11 bit pair. It has it's pluses and minuses, the DMA fetch for each character line is... [ahem] aggresive.
so the C64 clearly has a lot more data per screen, and used very intelligently. More character/sprite map attribute data is infinitely preferable to raster effects.
Hence the better graphics.
I'm guessing A8 games mess around re-pointing the character definitions alot? must be alot of options for trickery there.
Not to be rude, but...
I can't be honest and say that C64 has better graphics then Atari 800. No way. I compared the same games on both machines several times. The colours are so much better in the Atari version, while C64 has quite cold colours Atari produces a warm spread of colours that makes the screen much more easy to look at. Don't thrust me, try it yourself on VICE and WinAtari800 to see what i mean. There's more difference that i thought between C64 and Atari. Almost all games look samish on C64 thanks to the limited colour palette. You can tell within 2 sec it's a C64 game because C64 suffers from the same syndrome as ZX Spectrum who also have a very limited colour palette.
If i look at the screens that TMR posted, i can tell within 1 sec it's a C64 game, because of the colours. I think that you can do that too.
-
If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing.
I don't have to prove a thing.
Because it shows when you take a look at the screens.
Again, i wouldn't have chosen more than five or six of those screens to show off the Atari 8-bit under any circumstances and some of them are nowhere near as good looking as their C64 equivalents (Blinky's Scary School, Gauntlet or Draconus immediately spring to mind) whilst a few are truly hideous - i was wrong in one respect, because you've proved that you should probably get your eyes tested...!
So, you're a programmer?It wasn't obvious from how i've been talking about programming in a programming sub forum you mean...?!
Well yes, i'm a programmer and graphics artist and have written games for the C64, C16/Plus/4, VIC 20, Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit and so forth as well as providing support and graphics for various projects - right now i'm working on a couple of things, one of which is an A8 shoot 'em up and another a Spectrum game (before now i've only done graphics for it) but since i'm teaching myself Z80 on the fly for that one it's only being aimed at the CSSCGC and isn't a serious game... my first Atari 8-bit game (mine as in design, code and graphics) was Reaxion, which was released five years ago and looks like this...
...my last C64 game (released at the end of 2009) looks like this...
...and that's impossible to do on the Atari 8-bit for no less than three different reasons (four if you include the colour effect on the titles page). Oh, and i'm also the homebrew reviewer for Retro Gamer magazine.
I'm speaking of "colours" and the quality of them. The games looked like that on Atari already 1982 because of the hardware. When C64 had a single colour Atari used the rainbow effekt used in sooo many games. Check out the game "Dimension X" for Atari 800 via AtariWin800 to see what i mean. Impossible to do such thing on C64.
I thrust you when you say it's impossible to do that on an Atari. But the Atari games looked stunning already at 1983.
Here's my blog, i write some reviews too.
Unfortanly it's in swedish but i plan to write in english too.
http://gamlaspel.wordpress.com/
Nice games. I whish you good luck with your game creation.
This is Atari...
-
I will give you something to look at, and think about.
IF C64 was as good as Atari 800?
Why, didn't any of the games looked like this?
If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing.
I don't have to prove a thing.
Because it shows when you take a look at the screens.
No hard feelings and thanks for an interesting discussion. TMR.
So, you're a programmer?
I'm a muscision and retrofreak.
-
There we go again...
Because it's fun to compare old computers.
Nothing else.
I hope that you don't think that we take this seriously? I like all the old computers and plays all of them via emulator, from ZX81 to BBC, ZX Spectrum, C64 or Atari 800. (i emulate Amiga and Atari ST too).
Long live both C64 and Atari 800.
It's just fun to compare.
-
Atari 800 was the true "rainbow machine" with it's clear colours that C64 never could produce. We saw them even in the early games from 1982.
Given the choice between the colours & sprites, i'd definitely choose the sprites.
Those screenshots are mostly gimicky titlescreens; rasterbars can't replace real sprite/character colour choices for actual object detail.
the C64 is clearly superior for *games*. a8 for 'tinkering with graphics'
Atari 800 was the 8bit Amiga in many ways.
agree, but mainly similar in that the hardware sprites were only usefull for player character
regardless, c64=8bit winner, amiga=16bit winner.
wow. i'm being drawn into an argument about 2 machines i never owned! These debates will never wear thin.
interestingly i think I would have been very content if i owned an atari 8bit machine at the time.
We are still just talking 16 colours, like ZX Spectrum (with bright mode). The colours is still the same game after game, and it shows. The ST had a limit of 16 on screen colours too, but a palette of 512 to choose from. And to be honest i don't really think that the 64 version have better sprites. Then it depends on how much work the programmer has put in to make a good version of the game for that particular computer.
When we compare computers, have a look at this.
PNG, 592x1290px, 127 KB (0.12 MB)C64 to the left, ZX Spectrum to the right.
ZX Spectrum actually looks better sometimes because of a higher resolution. Check out Pac Mania for exemple.
ZX Spectrums limited hardware (including colour clash) made the games sometimes look a bit better, funny enough.
-
I will give you something to look at, and think about.
IF C64 was as good as Atari 800?
Why, didn't any of the games looked like this?
You tell me.
Let me guess. It can't be done with only 16 colours?
PNG, 684x9564px, 434 KB (0.42 MB)Atari 800 was the true "rainbow machine" with it's clear colours that C64 never could produce. We saw them even in the early games from 1982. Atari 800 was the 8bit Amiga in many ways.
-
Perhaps you missunderstand what i'm trying to say?
Atari has a palette of 256 different colours
Oh for crying out loud... it has 128 colours for the graphics modes being discussed because that's what CTIA Atari 8-bits kick out and the GTIA machines retain that presumably for compatibility. If we're talking about misunderstandings, that's your starting point.
but you can't use all of them at the same time, unless you perform some clever programming.Yes, thanks for repeating what i've already told you... s'just a shame you didn't say that when you talked about a "256 colour mode used in many games for Atari" previously.
On C64 it's the same colours all the time from game to game. You will recognize the typical green colour that C64 produces in game after game after game. That don't happend on Atari because of a much bigger palette to choose from.
Except of course they did repeat colours a lot on the A8 because many games use similar luminances to get bias relief and other related graphical styles. There are limits as to which colours can be used for hardware sprites as well if they're pairing off to generate multicolour objects, so sometimes the "clear colours" you've been wibbling on about were chosen more because when their values are ORed together they produce a desired third colour, not because they're somehow the "right" colours to use.
And as i've already said repeatedly that argument is utter bunk anyway because it's not just about the palette - for many people, a well drawn graphic in a fixed sixteen colours will still look better than a badly drawn one with a 128 colour palette to choose from and that's because it's subjective; trying to justify it with rubbish like the "clear colours" thing doesn't hold any water at all, if we're going around inventing ridiculous terms like that i'll just call the entire C64 palette "sparkly" and say that trumps "clear".
No, i don't hate C64 at all, i use VICE to play C64 games all the timei never said that you hate the C64, so stop trying to put words into my mouth.
You're still missing the point.
The point is that the programmer can choose exactly what colours to use from a big palette of colours. Something that is impossible on C64 where you only have 16 colours to work with. You can't choose that special red nuance you want to put on that dark red cube. You have to use one of that available 16 colours. And there isn't more then one red nuance left to choose from. On Atari you can choose among many nuances of red to find just the right one that you want. Even if you only use 12 colours for your game.
Old Computers.com wrote
COLORS. 16 (each color can have 8 luminances) = 128 colors maximum in the lowest graphic mode (requiring display list interruption to have them simultaneously) and up to 256 colors in some specific modes for machines having the GTIA chip instead of the CTIAPerhaps you should change the info on Wiki?
PNG, 321x362px, 5 KB (0 MB)C64 in PAL version didn't even had 1 Mhz CPU frequency.
PNG, 340x360px, 5 KB (0 MB)Of the screenshots i posted, can you find some bad drawing in the Atari version of the game?
No? Neither can i.
And i didn't say that you called me a C64 hater, i only wanted to make clear that i'm not. I trying to be honest instead. C64 was a good computer in many ways, but i can't match the graphics on the Atari 800. If it could, i would be the first one to say so and agree with you.
I don't say that every Atari 800 game looks much better then it's C64 counterpart, then i would be lying. What i say is that Atari is capable of producing graphical effects in the games that is beyond what C64 can handle. C64 can't produce multicolorspreads with it's 16 colours for exempel. C64 can't use alternate fine nuances of red, green or any other colour. Atari can do all that. Therefore Atari is the better machine in the graphics department.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl
in Programming
Posted · Edited by DimensionX
That's not true. To be able to create certain graphics you must have access to a certain amount of colours. Else you can't create that kind of graphics. And a palette of only 16 is VERY little to work with. You can't use finer nuances with so few colours and it shows on the C64 and Spectrum.
Not to say that you can't create good graphics on a 16 colour palette.