Color restricted palettes? (help)

[ptoing]

That looks quite hardcore, I think I have to give it a shot. Actually that is easier than C64 hires, 2 colours per 4x8 instead of 8x8 and more colours, sounds good to me, although the colours are a bit eyesore

[Ryumaru]

of course, its the c64. basically every other fixed pallette ever made fails to compare.

[ptoing]

of course, its the c64. basically every other fixed pallette ever made fails to compare.

Well as far as fixed palettes of old 8-bit computers go, yes indeed

[robotriot]

Heh, would be cool to see you do something with the KC85 restrictions, ptoing. After posting this I tried to improve on the first attempt, but this didn't turn out so great either. Don't know if I'll do anything more with it, as it's obviously unfinished and crappy at the same time.

[Slothien483]

Can't quite understand how to install the program, any readme file available?  

[Ai]

This older thread:
http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=1618.msg23719#msg23719

might further enlighten on the subject of C64.

Info about EGA64 and CPC (EGA64 was available on EGA adaptors with 256k of memory. It was only available in relatively-hi-res modes like 640x200 and 640x350)


Both of the above are based on RGB color cubes. No gamma correction has been applied.
To get accurate results on your display, gamma correction might help.

Topics that no one has covered here yet:
CGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Graphics_Adapter explains in -- too full! -- detail)
MSX-1 (the later MSX versions are probably too capable to suit this topic -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX)

[Helm]

Ai, CPC question: 4 colors from those single pixel in the whole pic, or 4 per 8x8 element or something?

And that Ega64 16 out of 64 colors could basically be used for stuff that almost looks vga if someone is smart enough. It's widepixels, 16 colors crammed into an 8x8 character should an artist want to, right? I might attempt something Ega64 just so I can fool people with it looking vga.

[Ai]

CPC doesn't have any per-cell limitations, the limits apply to the full screen in all standard cases. Nonstandard cases are that you can program raster effects to change about 2 of the palette colors per scanline if necessary, or switch between 'modes' (widepixel 16col/squarepixel 4col/tallpixel 2col) once per 4 scanlines (roughly). It's easier on the CPU to change the palette only once per 1/6th of screen (and I guess, also true for mode switching. Games don't mode switch rapidly anyway.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amstrad_CPC
has some exemplary screenshots in the 'notable games' section -- no games used the monochrome mode to my knowledge; the other two modes are demonstrated to good effect.
An example of CPC mode splitting is here

Re: EGA64
Haha, actually no -- EGA64 is somewhat-tall-pixeled(4:2.1875). The differences between it and VGA16 are: Slightly more resolution (640x400 VGA16 > 640x350 EGA64), and color choice (VGA16 64*** = 256k colors to choose your 16 from > EGA64 4*** = 64 colors to choose your 16 from.)

Re: weird limitations
You probably can't program an EGA64 adapter to do any weird modes (eg 160x200x(16 of 64) as you said Helm). I have not seen a pic of that kind here, nor have I seen a VGA-tweaked (ie modex) pic here. (eg designed for 320x480 mode -- you can find something very like that in Danny's gallery on gfxzone -- more than one, I think. I have drawn exactly one such pic myself.)
320x350x(16 of 64 or 262144) might be possible to tweak VGA16 to do. 0.91:1 aspect ratio. Or the 160x200x(16 of 64 or 262144) mode that EGA is too inflexible to cope with.

[Helm]

I mistakenly wrote 'widepixels' where I wanted to write 'singlepixels'. I wouldn't expect an EGA-type mode to do native widepixels, as they're not really made for that. Can you link to the Danny picture of that type you spoke of?

[Ai]

http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/danny/01/danny-winter_queen.html
Was the one I recalled, and it looks like he has no others.

(EDIT: For some reason, 320x480 is substantially harder than 160x200 to work with for me. It's probably in that middle zone between 'enough' and 'too much' definition for me and that causes the confusion.)