Reader Comments (35)
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 7:48PM frr171 said
The timeline should have concluded with the vibrant color palette of modern games: brown, red, and grey.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 7:49PM Special Agent Steve said
I wonder if anyone can actually discern a difference between 16.7 million and 16.7 billion colors.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 8:38PM xxxsam said
@Special Agent Steve
Provided it's the right 16.7 million, no they generally can't. That's kind of the point; eight bits per channel were chosen because (a) eight bits is a convenient unit for computers, but also (b) it's about the point at which most people can't distinguish between say red at 54 out of 255 vs. 55 out of 255. In other words, if that difference was obvious, we'd be using more bits.
Monitors actually use more bits per channel (converting from 8 bit input to 12 bit) but only in order to create the 'right' colours (apply calibration settings etc.) while still displaying 256 levels.
It's the same sort of reason that CDs use 16-bit audio; in any normal listening environment, it's impossible to hear a difference from greater bit depth. (Like the monitors, devices such as mixers and audio software use higher bit depth internally in order not to lose quality when processing the sound.)
Interesting article but kind of limited in that it only refers to consoles - ZX Spectrum computer had interestingly limited colour support, and at the time the Amiga also had interestingly powerful colour support (up to 4096 colours, but only with some complex/power-intensive programming that meant you couldn't actually use that mode for games).
Reply
Provided it's the right 16.7 million, no they generally can't. That's kind of the point; eight bits per channel were chosen because (a) eight bits is a convenient unit for computers, but also (b) it's about the point at which most people can't distinguish between say red at 54 out of 255 vs. 55 out of 255. In other words, if that difference was obvious, we'd be using more bits.
Monitors actually use more bits per channel (converting from 8 bit input to 12 bit) but only in order to create the 'right' colours (apply calibration settings etc.) while still displaying 256 levels.
It's the same sort of reason that CDs use 16-bit audio; in any normal listening environment, it's impossible to hear a difference from greater bit depth. (Like the monitors, devices such as mixers and audio software use higher bit depth internally in order not to lose quality when processing the sound.)
Interesting article but kind of limited in that it only refers to consoles - ZX Spectrum computer had interestingly limited colour support, and at the time the Amiga also had interestingly powerful colour support (up to 4096 colours, but only with some complex/power-intensive programming that meant you couldn't actually use that mode for games).
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 9:10PM Special Agent Steve said
@xxxsam
Damn... a "no" would've sufficed.
Thanks for the education though :D
Reply
Damn... a "no" would've sufficed.
Thanks for the education though :D
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 11:33PM doodaddy said
@Special Agent Steve have you looked into the dark in a game and seen the "bands" -- or horizontal lines -- of different grays? This is not unique to dark parts but it shows up the most in there because you are trying to draw between "really dark" and "a little more really dark". At that point, 16.7 million colors just isn't enough and you need even more "shades of gray". :)
Reply
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 6:14AM Third said
@Special Agent Steve
There's that, and the fact that the '16.7 billion' figure was either a typo or just pulled out of their arse. Base HDMI only supports up to 16.7 million (8 bits per channel, 24 bits/pixel, 2^24 = 16.7 million). Even if CoD used some kind of arcane sorcery* to push more bits through HDMI, 16.7 billion still doesn't make any sense as there is no power of 2 (i.e. a number of bits) that results in 16.7 billion. 33 bits gives only 8.6 billion and 34 bits gives 17.2 billion.
* I know HDMI 1.3 and up support 30, 36 and 48 bit colour depth, but that a) still doesn't give anything close to the 16.7mil figure (either a bit less or way more), and b) I strongly doubt the 360 or PS3 support it.
Reply
There's that, and the fact that the '16.7 billion' figure was either a typo or just pulled out of their arse. Base HDMI only supports up to 16.7 million (8 bits per channel, 24 bits/pixel, 2^24 = 16.7 million). Even if CoD used some kind of arcane sorcery* to push more bits through HDMI, 16.7 billion still doesn't make any sense as there is no power of 2 (i.e. a number of bits) that results in 16.7 billion. 33 bits gives only 8.6 billion and 34 bits gives 17.2 billion.
* I know HDMI 1.3 and up support 30, 36 and 48 bit colour depth, but that a) still doesn't give anything close to the 16.7mil figure (either a bit less or way more), and b) I strongly doubt the 360 or PS3 support it.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 7:53PM QuintonFlynn said
Thus the Dreamcast is proven, again, to be far ahead of its time.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 8:06PM Mastadon said
@QuintonFlynn
What? How did you sum that statement up after looking at this article? Both the PS1 and Dreamcast had a color depth of 16.7 million colors and the PS1 came out in 94, and Dreamcast came out in 97 with the same depth.
I agree that the Dreamcast was (and still is) a damn great console, but your statement is completely random after the article only references it once.
Reply
What? How did you sum that statement up after looking at this article? Both the PS1 and Dreamcast had a color depth of 16.7 million colors and the PS1 came out in 94, and Dreamcast came out in 97 with the same depth.
I agree that the Dreamcast was (and still is) a damn great console, but your statement is completely random after the article only references it once.
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 1:44AM NothingShocking said
@Coogan
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that may have been Quinton's point. This graphic stating the Dreamcast was released in '97 quite literally shows it "ahead of its time" LOL
Reply
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that may have been Quinton's point. This graphic stating the Dreamcast was released in '97 quite literally shows it "ahead of its time" LOL
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 8:33PM ShadowOp814 said
ps1 for the win! Gotta love that Spyro and MGS action, lol (and a lil Crash Team Racing to switch it on up)
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 8:34PM Shockwave said
Wow, Sega didn't like colors very much back then...
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 8:40PM xxxsam said
@That One Guy
Which part of the text 'are produced with colour-blind assist', identifying the milestone they were referring to, did you fail to read? Oh, right all of it. Oops.
Which part of the text 'are produced with colour-blind assist', identifying the milestone they were referring to, did you fail to read? Oh, right all of it. Oops.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 8:49PM Warlock234 said
@That One Guy
The article is mentioning mainly colors, not graphics quality. They obviously chose the most popular game (CoD) for the present color count.
The article is mentioning mainly colors, not graphics quality. They obviously chose the most popular game (CoD) for the present color count.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 9:53PM CaptainProtonX said
Wait...N64 only had 32k? That sounds very wrong.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 9:57PM CaptainProtonX said
@CaptainProtonX
Ah...
Colors: 16.7 million (32,000 on screen)
Reply
Ah...
Colors: 16.7 million (32,000 on screen)
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 10:00PM Esposch said
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about their Playstation statistic. Every game I've played in the thing has been 16-bit dithered (65536 colours).
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 5:31AM bm111 said
@Esposch
There's definitely a lot of dithering in PSX games, where the N64 never had anything like that.
Though I'm thinking that has more to do with the limitations on processing speed and memory issues than with the actual color capabilities. Theoretically it could probably show a full color photo, but in a real game environment it would need to cut back.
Reply
There's definitely a lot of dithering in PSX games, where the N64 never had anything like that.
Though I'm thinking that has more to do with the limitations on processing speed and memory issues than with the actual color capabilities. Theoretically it could probably show a full color photo, but in a real game environment it would need to cut back.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 11:27PM pluupy said
@That One Guy
Because obviously a person dumb enough to require a chart to spell it out for them must obviously play CoD.
Because obviously a person dumb enough to require a chart to spell it out for them must obviously play CoD.
Posted: Nov 5th 2011 11:58PM Powerlord said
Try playing games on a PC with CGA graphics.
You not only had a 4 color display, but only 4 colors were available (plus black): Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White.
And no, I have no idea why the colors for CGA were the dye primary colors rather than the light primary colors.
I played Maniac Mansion and several other games back before we finally got a VGA (or possibly SVGA) computer.
You not only had a 4 color display, but only 4 colors were available (plus black): Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and White.
And no, I have no idea why the colors for CGA were the dye primary colors rather than the light primary colors.
I played Maniac Mansion and several other games back before we finally got a VGA (or possibly SVGA) computer.
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 12:32AM Soiden said
@That One Guy
It's a chart, not a book.
It's a chart, not a book.
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 12:57AM MacMog said
Points off for calling the Game Boy “black and white”. It actually had a whopping four shades, and we loved each and every one of ‘em!
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 1:54AM meatee said
The NES could only do 25 colors on-screen at a time, not 52. Dyslexic?
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 8:58AM LittleMofreaky said
Sonic Colors (2010)
8 Colors
8 Colors
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 9:45AM CamelCamelCamel said
I may not be good enough at math to know why, but that top graphic with Pac-Man and the logo makes me happy.
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 9:45AM TCJJ said
I've been playing games for years but I still prefer older games. I'm discovering games on older systems that I was too young for at the tIme or simply missed out on because I wasn't alive at that time. Sure, there are plenty of awesome new games, but there is also a lot of crap, and I often find myself attracted to older games.
I didn't realise the gap between the Mega Drive/Genesis and the SNES was so large though. I knew the Super Nintendo was more powerful, but wow...
Too bad the Saturn wasn't on the list. I recently got one and I love the thing to bits. I didn't even know about it when I was growing up though - all my trends had Playstations, with the exception of one or two who had a Nintendo 64.
I'm not sure why the Dreamcast was included when that was from the next generation with the PS2, GameCube and Xbox (despite being released much earlier and pretty much failing).
I didn't realise the gap between the Mega Drive/Genesis and the SNES was so large though. I knew the Super Nintendo was more powerful, but wow...
Too bad the Saturn wasn't on the list. I recently got one and I love the thing to bits. I didn't even know about it when I was growing up though - all my trends had Playstations, with the exception of one or two who had a Nintendo 64.
I'm not sure why the Dreamcast was included when that was from the next generation with the PS2, GameCube and Xbox (despite being released much earlier and pretty much failing).
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 10:32AM Undulation said
Hmm, something not quite right with this. It's missing out machines which probably didn't sit with the creators easy plan of putting his/her fave consoles on there.
Posted: Nov 6th 2011 1:21PM Yatagarasu said
@Undulation Oh, they clearly didn't do their homework all around, it says at the bottom that the Dreamcast came out in 1997, lolololol
Reply
Posted: Nov 7th 2011 1:57PM DrEggman said
There is sooooooo much wrong with these stats that I don't know where to begin...I'm guessing Wiki would have been a great place to start. Colors and Color palates are two VERY different things.
EX: NES (which is missing from the timeline) could show 16 colors on screen from a palate of 52.
The Atari systems couldn't show 256 colors on screen at a time either.
SNES could show 256 colors on screen with a palate well in the 10,000s.
While the look of these pages don't look too bad, the lack of research destroys the content rendering them useless.
EX: NES (which is missing from the timeline) could show 16 colors on screen from a palate of 52.
The Atari systems couldn't show 256 colors on screen at a time either.
SNES could show 256 colors on screen with a palate well in the 10,000s.
While the look of these pages don't look too bad, the lack of research destroys the content rendering them useless.
Posted: Nov 7th 2011 5:14PM EdtheHammer said
to add another bit to the lack of research in the infographic, Space Invaders isn't anywhere close to the first space shooter. How does a site devoted to video games not know about Spacewar?
