Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniac
This does probably get a bit too hostile at times.
|
Especially when threads are titled like this one ("Crappy C64 screen resolution")
Quote:
|
Think about the Atari ST for a moment - launched in 1985, and even by 1988 it still cost £300 here, more than most 8-bits ever cost. It offered the 'holy grail' of a 320x200x16 colour mode with free colour placement - but couldn't scroll it smoothly, despite a processor that was easily 2-3 times faster than any 8-bit system. Even with VIC and SID, I'm sure the C64 could not have done any better.
|
I'm not sure what you mean here: do you mean that the C64 with the same CPU power of the Atari ST couldn't have done better than the Atari ST itself? That's quite a what-if. Anyway, the C64 didn't have 320x200x16 with free colour placement, so pure CPU grunt couldn't have compensated for that (sure it would have made the various software-based modes more practical and possibly allowed also new modes, but it couldn't have achieved such restriction-less mode).
Still, when it comes to screen modes, the C64 is much more capable than what it is commonly thought of, as the OP shows. It looks like I need to post this video again (sorry for that, but it seems to have gone unnoticed and it's appropriate for putting much of the resolution discussion to rest):
[ Show youtube player ]
The video shows a stock C64 handling the following:
* 304x192 hires, colorful and color-clash-free graphics;
* unrestricted scrolling;
* pseudo-transparency effects;
* lighting effects;
* animated backgrounds;
* hires sprites made of up to 5 freely choosable colors.
What was the title of this thread again?!?