In article <1992Dec20.113220.4718@memstvx1.memst.edu>
cse_stu@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> I've seen both the 850 and 900 that run at 25mhz and they are dogs
> ruinning sys 7.0. I can't believe that a 33mhz would make that much
> difference. It is a 1/3 increase in cpu speed but the ram and bus are at the
> same basic speed.
Sigh... Yet even more misinformation. First of all, there's no such thing
as a Quadra 850. Secondly, the Q950 VRAM and bus speeds are _not_ the
same as the Q700 and Q900. Please do everyone the favor of at least a
cursory check of the facts before you post. As far as the Quadras being
'dogs', folks in other Amiga newsgroups are saying they're getting frame
rates of 5 fps or so on an A4000 at 640 x 400 (at, I think, 8 bits/pixel).
That's not particularly fast. Also, it's my understanding that the A4000
chip memory bandwidth is about 7 MB/sec. This is too slow for 30 fps,
8-bit animation at 640 x 400, let alone 640 x 480 (assuming that every
pixel gets updated every frame).
> My point was that they only video board that gives you video
> quailty(good) is a board that runs on the nubus. The targa board is stuck in
> slow speed. You heard me wrong when you thought I said it could do fast
>animation because it can not.
No, I didn't hear you wrong. You posted it wrong. This is what you said:
"The only board that I have heard is fast enough for animation is the
targa card which is real expensive and it runs on the bus that is 10mhz."
Again, do everyone the favor of proofreading before you post.
> I agree that the direct video is faster then the targa board but unless
> you pay $2000 for a scan line converter your output to video from your mac's
> internal video is going to look bad compared to other computers like the
> amiga that are made for video.
Again, this is not true. As I stated in an earlier post in this thread,
the Quadra video hardware will produce NTSC or PAL timing. You most
certainly do not need a scan line converter - you do need an
RGB-to-composite converter to produce composite video (which is quite a
bit cheaper than $2K).
> I remeber when the accelerator software came out. It makes the
> animations go a lot faster but when there is a big change on the screen to a
> new backround or something you can always see the animation slow down or >
> stop to make the change. So maybe it does not make a difference to you but
> I am look for smooth animations. MacrcoMind comes close if you know what you > are doing but you still it frame flicker because the computer does not know
> when the video is displaying a fram. This is the real advantage on the amiga
> because I can tell the amiga to wait for a scanline that I want and it will
> tell me when it is being displayed. The mac does not have this kind of
> control.
Again, please re-read my previous post. The Q950 is running an animation
that updates at a sufficient rate to completely change every pixel on a
640 x 480 8-bit screen 30 times a second. Also, the Mac does know when a
new frame is being displayed, and the Accelerator program I'm using can
sync to this. In addition, the Quadra video hardware can generate an
interrupt on any video scan line. It _does_ have "this kind of control"
(although the vast majority of Mac software only uses the vertical
blanking interrupt, not the one triggered by a specific scan line).
> If you are really telling
> me the truth send me a video tape of an animation that changes each
> frame to a completly different thing like different digitized pics etc. I
> can provide you with a mailing adrress to anyone who can get a mac to do
> full frame rate video with an animation that is a worst case animation (big > changes in every frame).
> ============
> video man
Will you pay for the tape, shipping, and my time to generate it for you?
I don't really care if you're convinced or not - I just wish you'd stop
