Crappy C64 screen resolution

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by tomcat666

When we set to make a port of Atic Atac over to C64 we wanted to preserve the hi-res resolution. Steve did a great job of doing c64 specific hires graphics and all monsters and of course the player sprite use overlays so you get a lot of colours and no attribute clash in hires mode on c64, kinda proud of it really, it is rare thing on c64 :

[ Show youtube player ]

Looks nice. Seems to be playing a bit too fast though, and the more muted colors change the tone (not saying that's worse, just different).

I like how he added more colors in the C64 version. That could have been done in the original Spectrum game too, but the C64's more muted colors blend in better.

The Spectrum's character based attribute color and saturated colors made it hard to create good looking multicolored graphics, especially with the limited bandwidth of composite encoding. Atic Atac delt to this by using a black background and putting static objects on character boundaries. The black background made most colors stand out and kept the images sharp, and carefully aligned objects avoided color clash.

The use of lines to suggest walls and stairs was also clever. Without tiled patterns, filling large areas was slow. But lines could be drawn quickly, with a few decorations added to complete the illusion. We see this minimalist rendering technique in Knight Lore too, where walls are suggested with bricks around the edges and just a few in the middle.

One thing I have noticed in some C64 games is 'muddy' graphics caused by using bad color combinations. This is exacerbated by the poorer horizontal resolution and greater color choice in 160x200 mode. It's like the artists created graphics that looked great on paper, then when it looked bad on TV they blamed the TV instead of fixing it. This was particularly noticeable to those of us who had Amstrad CPCs, which could do the same resolution in sharply delineated RGB with brighter more saturated colors.

[rothers]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

I've been programming the Spectrum for over 40 years and have written emulators for it. It has a single, fixed video mode and that's it.

You might be thinking of the ZX81 which had a kind of quirky low res pixel mode that was actually created out of a subset of characters in it's text mode. The same characters also appeared in the Spectrum character set and could be used to produce similarly blocky graphics, but they're all just rendered directly into the same "high" resolution framebuffer.

The ZX does have a low res mode, the attribute table, which can be used to good effect and is in many demos.


You get a 64*24 or 32*48 screen res (further variations are possible - depends on how you set up the screen) to play with.


It's good for some things, you can even make impressive games with a mix of that and high-res graphics on top.


It has straightforward 8 bit writes, allowing you a variation of over 200 colour mixes + flashing.


You can do 4px scrolling with minimal CPU use too.



It's actually, imo, the most overlooked part of the hardware.

[tomcat666]

Originally Posted by rothers

The ZX does have a low res mode, the attribute table, which can be used to good effect and is in many demos.
It's actually, imo, the most overlooked part of the hardware.

There is a reason for it... it looks like crap for anything else but demo effects like plasmas and such.
When you go 4x4 you get some interesting games (Ringo 128: [ Show youtube player ] ), but for 4x4 you need to chase the raster with the cpu, which is not even remotely easy, mostly because of so many different ZX models out there that have different timings.

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by rothers

The ZX does have a low res mode, the attribute table, which can be used to good effect and is in many demos.

You get a 64*24 or 32*48 screen res (further variations are possible - depends on how you set up the screen) to play with.

That's not a different mode, it's just how attributes always work. And they're always 32*24 with 2 colours per 8*8 pixel sized area.

Now what you can do is absolutely hammer the attribute memory with CPU changes by racing the beam and that can give you additional colour resolution, much like you can do similar tricks on the C64 or CPC by changing colour registers mid frame.

Doing that "back in the day" was very rare because it's hard to get the timings quite right, especially since the different 128K machines also had different timings and some tricks for synchronisation didn't work on all models. In recent years coders have got a lot smarter and generalized the complex display code into engines like Nirvana and Bifrost. At the end of the day it's still just a single hardware video mode though.

Originally Posted by rothers

It has straightforward 8 bit writes, allowing you a variation of over 200 colour mixes + flashing.

There are only 8 colours possible to choose from and a bright flag that affects both colours at the same time, so it's only 128 combinations at most and that's ignoring the duplicates (and the fact bright and dark black are the same colour). The FLASH bit just swaps the two colours in a cell over on a fixed period, so it's even less useful when trying to build a display solely out of attribute changes than it normally is.

[saimon69]

I want to remind the software multicolor solutions like Bifrost and Nirvana Engine - are limited though due to the fact attributes are changed on the scanline (every single line for bifrost, every two for Nirvana) and cannot scroll

[Megalomaniac]

The Spectrum's 2 colours per 8x8 area limitation is so hard-coded into the system that it's never going to be easy to work around completely. I'm not sure it can be done well for moving graphics, even without scrolling. Every 8-bit had its limitations, and colour placement (and resultant clash) was the Spectrum's main one (that and sound). The Spectrum's screens took up the least memory of the three by some distance - this not only offset it being 48k versus 64k, but (alongside the quick processor for the day) was why it could scroll smoothly without any extra hardware, where the Amstrad struggled at times, and the C64 cost more due to VIC and SID (and was sometimes limited in doing things that VIC and SID werne't helpful for). I suspect though, that if you show most people screenshots of the same game on all three systems, the Spectrum will come third, despite the higher resolution.

[roondar]

Back in the 1980's, with the small and often not very good CRT screens used, the 160x200 mode was just not as much of a drawback as it is today. My guess is that most people responded better to more colourful games than higher resolution games with fewer colours shown. This in turn would lead most developers to primarily code C64 games in multi-colour mode.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by roondar

Back in the 1980's, with the small and often not very good CRT screens used, the 160x200 mode was just not as much of a drawback as it is today. My guess is that most people responded better to more colourful games than higher resolution games with fewer colours shown. This in turn would lead most developers to primarily code C64 games in multi-colour mode.

This. I don't recall anybody complaining about the resolution of the C64, but a lack of colours was something people would complain about.

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by roondar

Back in the 1980's, with the small and often not very good CRT screens used, the 160x200 mode was just not as much of a drawback as it is today. My guess is that most people responded better to more colourful games than higher resolution games with fewer colours shown. This in turn would lead most developers to primarily code C64 games in multi-colour mode.

You should also understand that the resolution of hi-res (320 pixels) is actually beyond what the NTSC and PAL signal can carry in terms of bandwidth. You can see that if you create an alternating on/off pattern on a hi-res screen, which generates color artefacts. Actually, these artefacts are even used to generate color on the Apple II as the pattern reassembles the color-subcarrier used to encode colors. 160 pixels is approximately the bandwidth limit for color signals anyhow. This is called "artefacting".

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by TCD

This. I don't recall anybody complaining about the resolution of the C64, but a lack of colours was something people would complain about.

When I moved form the ZX to C64 the lower res in many games was the first thing that caught my eye. Colours came much later, in fact in recent times, the simple reason being that I had only B&W TV

And that was a common theme for many people back then. Blockiness is as visible on SD TV as it is now, and it was one of the key reasons I wasn't as enamoured with the Commie as I hoped for. Of course, it did compensate for it in other ways (and some games had it anyway) but I always did miss the higher res of Spectrum.

[TCD]

I can see that for B&W displays Obviously a lack of colour isn't something you'd complain about on a B&W display So my comment was about C64s with colour displays.

[dreadnought]

Yes, well, I'm talking about resolution, which is what the OP is about and what you refer to in your post too. And that was the same regardless of colour or lack of it on the TV.

Atari 8-bit had similar problem and it was our main argument when going against them, or the Commodore folks in the schoolyard disputes. Of course, they had their set of arguments, about lack colour clash, better fx, sprites, and the like, all totally valid, but the fact remains.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Yes, well, I'm talking about resolution, which is what the OP is about and what you refer to in your post too.

In my post I compared the perceived importance of resolution and colours from my experience. The original post is about how 'atrocious' the C64 looks based on its resolution. roondar posted that for most people colour mattered more than the resolution on small CRTs which matched what I recalled from back in the day.

The ST had a faster CPU than the Amiga and sure as hell in the 'schoolyard fights' of the late 80s and early 90s that was brought up a lot. Factually that is absolutely correct and there are certainly games that benefit from that extra performance. I don't recall many people that didn't own either an ST or an Amiga that would argue that made the ST the better gaming machine.

So in the spirit of the first post let me express it like this: The resolution didn't matter for me or anyone that I knew in the 80s.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Blockiness is as visible on SD TV as it is now.

While I am not going to say anything about how you perceived things or what you did/didn't like (as this is very subjective and I wouldn't want to pretend to know how you experienced things in the past), this part of your post is not correct. Blockiness is way easier to see these days due to the much higher quality of displays and exacerbated by the much larger screens in use.

[tomcat666]

Originally Posted by Megalomaniac

The Spectrum's 2 colours per 8x8 area limitation is so hard-coded into the system that it's never going to be easy to work around completely. I'm not sure it can be done well for moving graphics, even without scrolling.

Maybe you should checkout these:

[ Show youtube player ]

[ Show youtube player ]

[ Show youtube player ]

[ Show youtube player ]

There are many more and some even feature scrollng. Amazing really

[AestheticDebris]

Pixels like Lego bricks was definitely a common complaint back in the day, due to both the low resolution and awkward aspect ratio. But colour density can make as much difference as pixel size, because it often takes a lot more pixels to convey a concept (a hand, a face etc) when it has to be monochrome compared to when you can use colour to suggest things.

It's why good Amstrad graphics could look better in it's low res mode than the C64, as it could pack more colours in. Of course palette plays a part too and the C64's colour selection sometimes blends better (and why Amstrad Plus graphics can really shine with it's 4096 colour palette, even at the same resolution).

[roondar]

Personally, I literally never heard the 'resolution' argument back when I had a C64. First I heard it was much, much later. Namely, on these forums. But perhaps my school yard was just different. Most of the 'discussions' about gaming was about whether the games were good or not.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by TCD

In my post I compared the perceived importance of resolution and colours from my experience. The original post is about how 'atrocious' the C64 looks based on its resolution. roondar posted that for most people colour mattered more than the resolution on small CRTs which matched what I recalled from back in the day.

What I recall back from the day is that colour didn't always matter because a lot of people had b/w TVs, but when they did, the resolution still counted, if you had some frame of reference.

Originally Posted by TCD

The ST had a faster CPU than the Amiga and sure as hell in the 'schoolyard fights' of the late 80s and early 90s that was brought up a lot. Factually that is absolutely correct and there are certainly games that benefit from that extra performance. I don't recall many people that didn't own either an ST or an Amiga that would argue that made the ST the better gaming machine.

What has this got to do with the subject at hand? Is this some roundabout way to say that "even if C64 had a 'crappy' resolution, nobody would argue that any other micro was better as a gaming machine"?


If so, then: a) I don't recall anybody saying it in this thread b) it's still not quite true since a lot of games were much better on other machines - even the ZX - than the C64 (just like some games played bettter on the ST). In some cases resolution could be a reason for this.

Originally Posted by TCD

So in the spirit of the first post let me express it like this: The resolution didn't matter for me or anyone that I knew in the 80s.

"My personal experience is more valid than yours". That's sorted then

Originally Posted by roondar

While I am not going to say anything about how you perceived things or what you did/didn't like (as this is very subjective and I wouldn't want to pretend to know how you experienced things in the past), this part of your post is not correct. Blockiness is way easier to see these days due to the much higher quality of displays and exacerbated by the much larger screens in use.

At the differential level we're talking about, the modern vs old TV doesn't make enough difference - which is why I said what I said and I stood by it. Of course, you can insist on a truism that on a 60" modern panel things are more visible than on a 14-20 inch tube TV, but for the sake of this discussion the difference between large jumps in resolution is as observable on the latter as it is on a former.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

"My personal experience is more valid than yours". That's sorted then

I seem to have hit a nerve. I'm really sorry about that. The first post asked if people were bothered by the resolution of the C64. I personally was not. That's all.

[Zak]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

"My personal experience is more valid than yours". That's sorted then

You're taking things personally that weren't meant that way. That's a thing of your selective perception.

Originally Posted by TCD

The resolution didn't matter for me or anyone that I knew in the 80s.

That's only a thing for people that did know about better resolutions. Obvioulsy, you did not know about computers games with better resolution or hardly ever experienced them in mid eighties. It's when you are a C64 owner and that is what you know on a daily basis, you will not see any downsides in it, because your eyes are a used to it. We had a Spectrum and a PC at home, both with better resolution. I don't say that those are better computers, but the screen resolution was better and I was so much used to it, that I didn't like the C64 much in the eighties, colors or no colors.