Thread
New PM but none in Inbox
See LadyROOT says you have a virus!.
Yes, another one was just sent out. (See my latest post in that thread.)
Yes, another one was just sent out. (See my latest post in that thread.)
This is because a spammer sent you a PM. Once we realize a spammer is active, we delete the account. When the spammer's account is deleted, so are all the messages the spammer sent.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but some of the spammers are either too good for the captcha or are actual people. I'll look into a better solution.
[I made this thread a sticky so other users with the same question can get it answered faster.]
_________________
Power to the PowerPC!
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but some of the spammers are either too good for the captcha or are actual people. I'll look into a better solution.
[I made this thread a sticky so other users with the same question can get it answered faster.]
_________________
Power to the PowerPC!
I can't help it if some of my games run at 16 colors! 
The Radius version of the card does 4-bit, but doesn't do 1-bit, while the Supermac version does do 1-bit, but doesn't do 4-bit. It's weird. I understand the skipping of 16-bit color. I don't know of any apps that require 16-bit that won't run under 24-bit.
If there was a way to use my IIci's video in addition to my NuBUS video, then problem would be solved.
The Radius version of the card does 4-bit, but doesn't do 1-bit, while the Supermac version does do 1-bit, but doesn't do 4-bit. It's weird. I understand the skipping of 16-bit color. I don't know of any apps that require 16-bit that won't run under 24-bit.
If there was a way to use my IIci's video in addition to my NuBUS video, then problem would be solved.
Got one from MANINBLACK.
Needs to be banned.
_________________
iOwn: GrayBook 2GHZ (Main Laptop), iMac G5 1.6GHZ (Main Desktop), iBook 1GHZ, eMac700mhz, iMac350, iMac233, B&WG3400mhz, BWG3350MHZ, iBook466MhzGrayx2, iBook300Mhzblue, Performa6214CD, Mac512k, MacClassic2, MacIIcix2, PM8100/110, PowerBook150, Apple][e.
Needs to be banned.
_________________
iOwn: GrayBook 2GHZ (Main Laptop), iMac G5 1.6GHZ (Main Desktop), iBook 1GHZ, eMac700mhz, iMac350, iMac233, B&WG3400mhz, BWG3350MHZ, iBook466MhzGrayx2, iBook300Mhzblue, Performa6214CD, Mac512k, MacClassic2, MacIIcix2, PM8100/110, PowerBook150, Apple][e.
If you bring that LCD back to life, there's undoubtedly an A/B source switch to choose between the VGA HD-15 feed and the BNC Feed, so you can have one LCD do double duty from the same CPU via the two connectors.
Persnally, I have a 22" CRT to the left, the 20" Dell UltraScan doing 1600x1200 in front of me and another 19" version of same running 1024x1280 in Portrait Mode . . .
. . . actually, haven't had time to hook everything up as yet, I just moved into the bedroom my last roommate trashed. Gotta find another so I'll have money for toys again.
I'm not sure I even have a PCI Card that'll output 2048x1536 to max out the CRT. :-/
Persnally, I have a 22" CRT to the left, the 20" Dell UltraScan doing 1600x1200 in front of me and another 19" version of same running 1024x1280 in Portrait Mode . . .
. . . actually, haven't had time to hook everything up as yet, I just moved into the bedroom my last roommate trashed. Gotta find another so I'll have money for toys again.
I'm not sure I even have a PCI Card that'll output 2048x1536 to max out the CRT. :-/
I don't understand, it should work right out of the box. Back in the day, folks oftenran a Grayscale TPD from a NuBus Card and he 13" RGB off the IIci MoBo fot spot color as an economical/workable DTP setup.
Vampire video only has one fairly long tooth in the IIci, in the IIsi it has huge fangs and CLAWS. \\\*vv*///
.
Vampire video only has one fairly long tooth in the IIci, in the IIsi it has huge fangs and CLAWS. \\\*vv*///
.
The last post on this Google post hints that both Mac IIci internal and Mac IIci NUBUS Card videos can be used at the some time.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.unix.aux/khA8Zho_cW8/exUDhTLJG7wJ
Thing is, can the system you are using do the same? I would guess so in the Monitors control panel if it is a later System. But that's my guess. Now to get 2 monitors see it at the same time!
Also, I found this Apple link that explain why some monitors don't work with a Mac and how to get them to work... Its a matter of grounding some pins.
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA40897?viewlocale=en_US#
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.unix.aux/khA8Zho_cW8/exUDhTLJG7wJ
Thing is, can the system you are using do the same? I would guess so in the Monitors control panel if it is a later System. But that's my guess. Now to get 2 monitors see it at the same time!
Also, I found this Apple link that explain why some monitors don't work with a Mac and how to get them to work... Its a matter of grounding some pins.
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA40897?viewlocale=en_US#
Parallel PCI at the standard 33mhz bus speed is good for 133MB/sec in burst mode. (Some older Macs didn't run the PCI bus that fast.) 2048x1536 at 32 bit color translates to a whopping 12MB frame buffer so... sure, if you were running some sort of application that needed to change *every pixel on the screen at once* (Basically something that displayed a video or a game by rendering a gigantic bitmap in main memory and brute-force shoving it into the framebuffer without using any acceleration or rendering features on the card itself) you'd be limited to around 10 FPS. Of course, that's a pretty ridiculous worst case scenario.
(Any application that needed to push that much bandwidth would probably find itself limited in a whole slew of other respects trying to run on a PCI-only PowerPC Macintosh. I'd be sort of surprised if the main RAM subsystems in the Beige ones are good for 133Mb/sec.)
Just to give my brain a workout in the morning, I calculated the theoretical ram throughput on my Performa 6360 for comparison. Apple specifies 70ns or faster ram, so that means a clock of ~14.3MHz. 64-bit FPM 5v DIMMs are used in individual banks in this machine, so it's 64 bits wide. 14.3*64/8= 114.4MB/s. Later SDRAM models such as my Beige G3 would be 66*64/8= 528MB/s at maximum. This, of course doesn't take into account latency and overhead between PCI and RAM.
Well, remember, the bus speed of the slot the card is in has basically nothing to do with how capable the video card can be; unless you're doing something like advanced 3D work where textures are grabbed straight from system RAM the refresh for the monitor comes from the RAM on the card, not across the bus. (IE, the limiting factor is how fast the memory subsystem on the card is, the speed of the RAMDAC, etc.) Where bus speed comes into play is actually updating the display; again, for instance, if you had a 2048x1535 card sitting on a PCI bus *if* you had a sufficiently fast disk/RAM/CPU subsystem to generate bitmap content at an essentially infinite rate you'd still only be able to shove about 10 frames per second into the card's VRAM. (This presumes that the RAM subsystem on the card is capable of sustaining the roughly 700MB/second read rate it needs to update the monitor at, say, 60fps *while* it receives data at 133MB/s, of course.)
To apply the same idea to your Nubus card, at about 4.5MB a frame a 1600x1200 Nubus card is only going to be able to update about 4 frames a second. (Again, this is shoving frames directly from main memory into the framebuffer, and assuming that the memory on the card is dual-ported and zero latency so it can actually take these writes while simultaneously burning a good 400Mb/s-ish of reads to update the monitor.)
This resolution/bus speed mismatch is really painful on old ISA bus PCs; it wasn't unusual to have 50mhz 486 machines saddled with 1024x768 ISA video cards back in the day, and ISA is only really good for about 4MB/sec sustained. Even at an 8 bit color depth that's about 6 FPS, tops. GUI acceleration features could *help* but only so much. At 2.3MB/sec even a 320x240x8 bit video feed pushes the capacity of the bus; this is the reason why Macs and Amigas so badly dominated PCs in the multimedia department until the advent of "Local Bus" and PCI.
Hey, these days a lot of people expect their games to run at 1080p (about the same pixel count as 1600x1200) and it's only a matter of time before "4k" resolutions will be sold as if they were a must have. (Whether anyone actually "needs" that is a totally separate question.)
Too bad widescreen TVs didn't debut at 21:9 like they should have. Now we have two different screen ratios both called 4K: the original, DCI standard at 4096x2160; and the TV marketing shenanigans at 3840x2160... which isn't even close to 4K. Used to be just called 2160p or UHD.
It's like 4G for cell phones. They slap the label on everything, even stuff we used to call 3G. It's now magically called 4G because... reasons.
It's like 4G for cell phones. They slap the label on everything, even stuff we used to call 3G. It's now magically called 4G because... reasons.
I hate all the multi-letter resolution designations. Just use the stinking numbers. WXUYVHYEJ doesn't mean anything to anyone except some engineer. People can grasp numbers, they'll realize that 1366x768 is less than 1920x1080. 4K tv's may not be full 4K resolution, but it's a better name than UHD. Calling it Ultra High Definition is just going down the same road USB is, where we went to High Speed, and now we have Super Speed. What's next, Super Duper Speed? And Super Mega Ultra High Definition?
/rant
/rant
How is 4K better than UHD? They're both meaningless in relation to what they represent, and mean nothing compared to the existing 720p and 1080p.
They already had a naming scheme, they should have kept it. The vertical, progressive or interlaced resolution was fine. 720p, 1080p, and now 2160p seem fine to me.
They already had a naming scheme, they should have kept it. The vertical, progressive or interlaced resolution was fine. 720p, 1080p, and now 2160p seem fine to me.
Or forgot what we learned. I finished high school 21 years and 5 months ago.
When I started school, Commodore PET was the new "easy" computer and my school was the lucky few to have some in library. Finished Wines school with C64 and Apple II. Finished middle school with IBM PS/1 (the odd looking one that looks like early Macintosh style ZFP hard drive under a mono display) series and Apple IIgs
When I started school, Commodore PET was the new "easy" computer and my school was the lucky few to have some in library. Finished Wines school with C64 and Apple II. Finished middle school with IBM PS/1 (the odd looking one that looks like early Macintosh style ZFP hard drive under a mono display) series and Apple IIgs
Teen-ty-one six-ty is 5 syllables but when you add the "p" it's six.Twen-ty one six-ty four looks like 6 syllables to me
Se-ven twen-ty is 4, not 2 as noted above and ten-eigh-ty is three, again, not 2 as noted.
Whatever! The average consumer doesn't really understand the letter designations OR numeric descriptives with the "p" suffix, not to mention having absolutely no clue whatsoever about aspect ratios or comparing which might be better for what.
Don't even get me started about upscaling or downscaling, John and Jane Q. Public can't get past whining that they should be able the make the letterbox bands go away.
Dunno about the rest of you, but Mirriam, Harbrace and Roget are my bedside companions.
.
Or the ehanced version with 120Hz upscale (which looks really bad when you're playing an animated video like Disney movie) and those enhanced with extra color: Yellow (RYGB instead of normal RGB) to try and get better yellow color but since standard video is RGB only the result may be oversaturated yellow or weaker red/green. And then there's 3D, LED, plasma, infinity contrast, etc. I gave up on the marking BS and looked through Consumer Digest for decent midrange TV.
I'm pretty fine with 16:9 instead of 21:9 as the standard aspect ratio, at least for however long ATSC lasts as a standard. Something tells me it's a little optimistic to hope we get 50 years out of it like we did with NTSC, but it probably has at least a decade or two of mileage left in it. In my unscientific opinion displaying 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen (and there's a lot of 4:3 content out there) without stretching/distortion wastes an "acceptable" amount of screen real estate compared to the nearly half the screen you'd lose with 21:9. (Of course, there'd undoubtedly still be morons who'd stretch 4:3 to 21:9 because making everyone look like Stewie Griffin is somehow preferable to seeing black bars on the screen, but I'm going to pretend those people don't count.) Yes, then there's the problem of having to letterbox cinematic content and wasting a similar proportion of screen real estate for movies in their original format, but I don't use my TV *just* for movies so I'm fine with having to compromise a little.
(If you want to be pedantic even 21:9 isn't wide enough to show full CinemaScope without cropping or letterboxing.)
Nor am exactly chomping at the bit for 4K. The data transfer requirements are still unwieldy; you basically need a hard disk to carry a full resolution 4k movie around and given how American telecom companies are prioritizing squeezing ever more money out of their subscribers over building out their networks streaming isn't going to be a realistic option for a while either. And further, unless you sit too close to your TV or have built your own full-up Home Theatre the increased resolution is mostly wasted anyway. (Chances are really good that your existing HD TV is already a "Retina Display" according Apple's definition.)
If you'd asked before I'd experienced it if I thought the human brain would even really be able to perceive the "halfway" frames being generated between the real ones I would have been somewhat sceptical of the idea. But, no, it does see it, and it's scary as **ll.
(If you want to be pedantic even 21:9 isn't wide enough to show full CinemaScope without cropping or letterboxing.)
Nor am exactly chomping at the bit for 4K. The data transfer requirements are still unwieldy; you basically need a hard disk to carry a full resolution 4k movie around and given how American telecom companies are prioritizing squeezing ever more money out of their subscribers over building out their networks streaming isn't going to be a realistic option for a while either. And further, unless you sit too close to your TV or have built your own full-up Home Theatre the increased resolution is mostly wasted anyway. (Chances are really good that your existing HD TV is already a "Retina Display" according Apple's definition.)
Yegads. My Sharp brand TV was set up to do that out of the box and I think I was about five minutes into the first cartoon before I was frantically digging through the menus to disable it. (Luckily you can.) It's *weird* and sort of unnerving; it adds this strangely reptilian "slithering" aspect to animated programs on top of making live action movies look like cheap soap operas. Seriously, who asked for this feature?
If you'd asked before I'd experienced it if I thought the human brain would even really be able to perceive the "halfway" frames being generated between the real ones I would have been somewhat sceptical of the idea. But, no, it does see it, and it's scary as **ll.
That 120Hz upscale might have been geared for live sport events. Still a bad idea (big waste of $$$) because most people can't perceive individual frames at 60Hz anyway. It's like using expensive 93-octane gasoline when most car won't show any difference using cheaper 87 gas.
With all the editing and computer manipulation that happens to big-ticket sporting events before they even leave the studio people might as well just watch their teenage kids play John Madden Football on a Playstation instead. At least what they'll be seeing is arguably more authentic. (It's "generated" as opposed to "manipulated".)
I was bored at work the other night and ran some numbers:
4096 x 2160 letterboxed to 21:9 wastes only 19% of the available pixels.
3480 x 2160 letterboxed to 21:9 jumps the wast to 24% of the pixels you paid to get
1/5 or 1/4 (close enough for comparison) of pixels tossed down the oubliette of the aspect ratio inquisition.
Movie theaters have always been letterboxed by curtain adjustments to cover the unused sides of the screen. The unwashed masses never noticed that, now the want the full screen experience they've been used to before big (wide) screen TV and ubiquity of full screen content at long last.
4096 x 2160 letterboxed to 21:9 wastes only 19% of the available pixels.
3480 x 2160 letterboxed to 21:9 jumps the wast to 24% of the pixels you paid to get
1/5 or 1/4 (close enough for comparison) of pixels tossed down the oubliette of the aspect ratio inquisition.
Movie theaters have always been letterboxed by curtain adjustments to cover the unused sides of the screen. The unwashed masses never noticed that, now the want the full screen experience they've been used to before big (wide) screen TV and ubiquity of full screen content at long last.
One thing to remember about 4K in the "cinema" context (as opposed to TV flat panels) is although 4096x2160 results in a "square pixel" 19:1 aspect ratio it's pretty common for anamorphic lenses to be used to display super-widescreen/CinemaScope content without sacrificing vertical resolution; IE, instead of "throwing away" pixels they're all used, they're just not necessarily square anymore. (It's *possible* to fit extremely-high-end home theater projectors with lenses like this, but most people just fake it by using a zoom function to automatically best-fit the "active content area" of letterboxed material onto the available projection space.) Since the "normal" consumer television market almost entirely consists of panels instead of projection you don't really have the option to use adaptive optics or whatnot to keep from wasting pixels so it's inevitable that *any* shape is going to leave some people unhappy with how their content is displayed on it.
I don't think anyone would argue that 16:9 is the "perfect" shape but it was specifically chosen as a compromise between widescreen cinema and legacy 4:3 content (which technically includes movies made well into the 1970's). The TV industry *for now* seems to be concentrating their efforts behind pushing the 16:9 "UHD" standard in part for the same reason that Apple just quadrupled the pixel counts on their Retina iPads; they can sell it as being some sort of quantum leap in quality while letting it be 100% backwards compatible with its predecessor with just a hamfisted 2x scaleup of existing content. (Again, there have been a few 21:9 TVs marketed but in practice they've tended to bomb on the market. A big factor in this is that blue-ray is natively 1920x1080 and, just like DVD, it adds black bars to widescreen content. This forces a 21:9 TV to upscale and thus arguably lose picture quality compared to the same thing displayed on a taller-but-similar-width 16:9 set. Until there's a standard for ultra-widescreen content that doesn't require upscaling hacks this is a problem for *any* oddball-shaped panel.) Again, I'm not completely sold on this whole thing; 4K TVs do look awesome when you're face to face with them in the showroom and the TV is playing a native resolution demo, but in your living room it's really not going to make much difference and unless all you do is watch a small collection of movies and highly-compressed online content all it's going to be doing is upscaling 1080p-or-less feeds. And honestly I'm sick enough with the scaler on my 1080P set's (and it's 720p predecessor's, for that matter) attempts to lie to me already. Bleah.
I don't think anyone would argue that 16:9 is the "perfect" shape but it was specifically chosen as a compromise between widescreen cinema and legacy 4:3 content (which technically includes movies made well into the 1970's). The TV industry *for now* seems to be concentrating their efforts behind pushing the 16:9 "UHD" standard in part for the same reason that Apple just quadrupled the pixel counts on their Retina iPads; they can sell it as being some sort of quantum leap in quality while letting it be 100% backwards compatible with its predecessor with just a hamfisted 2x scaleup of existing content. (Again, there have been a few 21:9 TVs marketed but in practice they've tended to bomb on the market. A big factor in this is that blue-ray is natively 1920x1080 and, just like DVD, it adds black bars to widescreen content. This forces a 21:9 TV to upscale and thus arguably lose picture quality compared to the same thing displayed on a taller-but-similar-width 16:9 set. Until there's a standard for ultra-widescreen content that doesn't require upscaling hacks this is a problem for *any* oddball-shaped panel.) Again, I'm not completely sold on this whole thing; 4K TVs do look awesome when you're face to face with them in the showroom and the TV is playing a native resolution demo, but in your living room it's really not going to make much difference and unless all you do is watch a small collection of movies and highly-compressed online content all it's going to be doing is upscaling 1080p-or-less feeds. And honestly I'm sick enough with the scaler on my 1080P set's (and it's 720p predecessor's, for that matter) attempts to lie to me already. Bleah.
On the topic, years back when I used a Mac constantly I considered some kind of hack that would patch the main GDevice to be 1/2/4-bit, then in a vertical retrace task remap it to the video card's 8-bit buffer every frame behind the OS's back. Since you usually run those old games at 640x480 or smaller, and this issue was present on fast PowerPC machines, they would have been plenty fast to do this. It'd be somewhat a pixel depth emulator, giving the OS a virtual screen.