Amiga Animation and CHIP RAM versus FAST RAM

[Rowbeartoe]

On the ST, Cyber software (CAD 3D, Cyper Paint etc) let you page flip 16 color 320x200 pictures up to 60fps (NTSC). Spectrum 512 using unispec allowed 512 color pictures to page flip at 60fps. You could make some nice animations with a MEGA ST4 (4 megabytes of RAM).  But on the Amiga 500, when I demonstrated CAD 3D for it, I was able to only get about 30fps (32 color pictures), and I remember some Scult 3D and the juggler animation (HAM-6) graphics, never being able to surpass 30fps.  So Again, I was just curious if the software available to the consumer for the orginal Amigas (500,1000,2000) could let you do 60fps animations, be it 32 color, 64 color half bright, or
the very impressive 4,096 color HAM-6?    

No doubt, the AGA chipset was more than capable.  But I'm trying to settle somthing that has been bothering me when I was a computer salesman back in 1988/1989-- the time when there was only an Amiga 500,1000,2000 and only an Atari 520ST, 1040ST, and Mega ST2/4 in the States.

Thank you EVERYONE for trying to resolve this for me.  Again- I'm sure (not entirely) it was possible for programers to achieve this goal, but I just wanted to know if the software available by 1989 for the Amiga could.  

[Zac67]

I'd venture the replay routines on the Amiga were optimized/designed to allow replay of interlaced frames. There are only 30 interlaced fps, so the coders didn't include a special faster non-interlace mode replay of up to 60 fps.
The Ataris lack interlace mode, so you'd code for 60 fps from the start.

Maybe as simple as that.

[bloodline]

JetRacer wrote:
@ bloodline: notice how I didn't write compressed video replay but raw video (more accurately: animation).

An attemt to make a modern OS display and loop a +16MB raw feed flawlessly in 60fps will in 99.9% of all cases fail miserably. If not at replay then when it "loops" and halt for 0.5 sec to re-loading the whole thing or some similar dumbass behavior.

I would seriously have to disagree here, since I can run 50 stereo tracks of 24bit audio all at 48Khz on my MacBook Pro... right from its slow laptop drive without problems in Logic Pro... That is something like 25MB/s... not to mention the number of effects and automations running at the same time...

I have friends who are film students, one is able to edit uncompressed HD films in FinalCut on His MacBook Pro... and the other uses Adobe something-or-other on a fairly old WinXP machine...

Even the humble laptop has had this level of performance for many years.

[LoadWB]

bloodline wrote:

JetRacer wrote:

Fun fact: even modern PC's have major difficulties working under similar conditions (read: massive MB 320x200 raw animation replayed with flawless 60hz fps). It's ofcourse the OS of Win/Linux/Mac that bogs down performance and nothing else.

It does? Perhaps 10 years ago... but not now...

Yeah, now it's crappy chipsets that cause the issue of slow full screen rendering.  Thank you, Intel.

I had a workstation with the 810 chipset and it could not do full screen video, even with a high-performance PCI video card.  And so now I have a notebook with the 915 chipset, and while it CAN do full screen, the chipset and CPU can reach around 160F during the decode and display process.

And these aren't isolated; Intel is KNOWN for making crappy video-integrated chipsets.

[Zac67]

Please show me a non-crappy integrated video chipset... :roll:

The Whitney chipset had many problems and is best rapidly discarded.

[Krusher]

Zac67 wrote:
Please show me a non-crappy integrated video chipset... :roll:

The Whitney chipset had many problems and is best rapidly discarded.

My laptop has the Intel 855GM chipset and despite it's 5 years old, it works great. I can even watch 720p video on my external 22" tft at 1680x1050 resolution without a glitch.

[Zac67]

The notebook I'm typing this on has an i945GM chipset and I kept experiencing system crashes w/ DirectX in tighter memory situations. Only after expanding to 2 GB this has somewhat grown better.
I had a GIF image that kept bluescreening the system when the Explorer's preview function was used - on all Intel graphics systems I tried it on. I haven't found one single nVidia or ATI driven system to crash with it - I've tested ~25 machines.
Go figure.

[Sig999]

bloodline wrote:

JetRacer wrote:

Fun fact: even modern PC's have major difficulties working under similar conditions (read: massive MB 320x200 raw animation replayed with flawless 60hz fps). It's ofcourse the OS of Win/Linux/Mac that bogs down performance and nothing else.

It does? Perhaps 10 years ago... but not now...

Was about to say - I work in a video production house and work with uncompressed digitized video and animations all day long.

I export these for client review a lot of the time to uncompressed (1:1) quicktime for clients to review via ftp when sending a tape isn't viable.

I'm hoping this still works when I get back from vacation - or I might be out of a job... :lol:

[Sig999]

bloodline wrote:

I have friends who are film students, one is able to edit uncompressed HD films in FinalCut on His MacBook Pro... and the other uses Adobe something-or-other on a fairly old WinXP machine...

Even the humble laptop has had this level of performance for many years.

That would most likely be Adobe Premier (and/or After Effects).

I use Avid Adrenaline and Nitrus DS (formally Softimage) at work and Avid Xpress Pro on this system at home.

[Rowbeartoe]

Zac67 wrote:
I'd venture the replay routines on the Amiga were optimized/designed to allow replay of interlaced frames. There are only 30 interlaced fps, so the coders didn't include a special faster non-interlace mode replay of up to 60 fps.
The Ataris lack interlace mode, so you'd code for 60 fps from the start.

Maybe as simple as that.[/quote]

Interesting- so you have a theory that say those Anim files were limited to 30fps because the programers scripted them for interlaced modes?  

This does get to the heart of my question.  Most software by 1989 that allowed non programers such as myself to make animation using programs such as Scupt 3d, or photon paint II, saved the files as ANIM files (?).  So these players much like the Atari ST SPC players, could page flip up to only 30fps?  Unitl that AGA chipset and ANIM6 or ANIM7 came out?  

Thank you everyone for your help.  I'm always much more fascinating is what software allowed the user to do versus the specifications.  If a paint program was faster on an ST, did didn't matter if the Amiga had a Blitter, the software buyer was at the mercy of the programmers.  

[bloodline]

Rowbeartoe wrote:


Zac67 wrote:
I'd venture the replay routines on the Amiga were optimized/designed to allow replay of interlaced frames. There are only 30 interlaced fps, so the coders didn't include a special faster non-interlace mode replay of up to 60 fps.
The Ataris lack interlace mode, so you'd code for 60 fps from the start.

Maybe as simple as that.

Interesting- so you have a theory that say those Anim files were limited to 30fps because the programers scripted them for interlaced modes?  

This does get to the heart of my question.  Most software by 1989 that allowed non programers such as myself to make animation using programs such as Scupt 3d, or photon paint II, saved the files as ANIM files (?).  So these players much like the Atari ST SPC players, could page flip up to only 30fps?  Unitl that AGA chipset and ANIM6 or ANIM7 came out?  

Thank you everyone for your help.  I'm always much more fascinating is what software allowed the user to do versus the specifications.  If a paint program was faster on an ST, did didn't matter if the Amiga had a Blitter, the software buyer was at the mercy of the programmers.  [/quote]

It could be that Amiga software was almost always beam synchronised to ensure that the graphics wouldn't tear during redraws... I guess the Amiga was therefore at the mercy of the display device, if that was a TV, then it would be 25fps (PAL) or 30fps (NTSC).

[Zac67]

The - supposed - limitation would not be due to the file format, but the replay routine. On the Amiga Copper lists are used for most video timings. This suggests to trigger the page flip on the very last video line (only present on the 2nd field), thus limiting the replay speed to 30 fps (for NTSC). There might even be some OS support for this method (can't find my KRM right now).

Hasn't anyone here actually low-level coded something like this?

[Zac67]

bloodline wrote:

It could be that Amiga software was almost always beam synchronised to ensure that the graphics wouldn't tear during redraws... I guess the Amiga was therefore at the mercy of the display device, if that was a TV, then it would be 25fps (PAL) or 30fps (NTSC).

Good point, but non-interlaced runs at 50 resp. 60 fps. However, the synchronized 'Amiga' way is what I was pointing at.

[bloodline]

Zac67 wrote:

bloodline wrote:

It could be that Amiga software was almost always beam synchronised to ensure that the graphics wouldn't tear during redraws... I guess the Amiga was therefore at the mercy of the display device, if that was a TV, then it would be 25fps (PAL) or 30fps (NTSC).

Good point, but non-interlaced runs at 50 resp. 60 fps. However, the synchronized 'Amiga' way is what I was pointing at.

All TV displays are interlaced, regardless of what the Amiga is putting out. :-)

[Zac67]

Well, TV displays are interlaced since TV signals are.  The Amiga's video signal may be non-interlaced, so that's what the monitor has to output.

My old Mitsubishi EUM even showed black lines between scan lines in non-interlace mode due to its low dot pitch.

[bloodline]

Zac67 wrote:
Well, TV displays are interlaced since TV signals{/i] are.  The Amiga's video signal may be non-interlaced, so that's what the monitor has to output.

My old Mitsubishi EUM even showed black lines between scan lines in non-interlace mode due to its low dot pitch.

Exactly! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_television#Display_technology
Anything synced with a TV will referesh at either 25 or 30 fps.