The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Fact: Monitors, TV's, etc - all use RGB colour scheme.
Fact: RGB colour scheme cannot represent all the visible colours of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is because some have a negative red component, that is to say, you'd have to add red to it to achieve a match with the RGB system.
In your opionion, is this significant, and will it prevent graphics ever being totally convincing?
Discuss ;)
Fact: RGB colour scheme cannot represent all the visible colours of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is because some have a negative red component, that is to say, you'd have to add red to it to achieve a match with the RGB system.
In your opionion, is this significant, and will it prevent graphics ever being totally convincing?
Discuss ;)
Page:
For people who dont know where the 256 is coming from then open up a paint package that has the sliders and numbers by each of the 3 colours like in Paint shop pro. Then each colour has a max of 255 + the zero at the start this = 256.
On PC's they can have more than RGB. As games can use 32bit colour and RGB is only 24bit colour.
On PC's they can have more than RGB. As games can use 32bit colour and RGB is only 24bit colour.
turbonutter wrote:
> Grab a calculator. Do 256x256x256.
I already told them that :)
> Grab a calculator. Do 256x256x256.
I already told them that :)
Grab a calculator. Do 256x256x256.
It makes 16,777,216 (My fist calculation was wrong). That's how many colours RGB can show.
It makes 16,777,216 (My fist calculation was wrong). That's how many colours RGB can show.
The_Vottanator wrote:
> turbonutter wrote:
> The RGB colour system can show 16,581,375
> colours. Can you really
> tell the difference between the
> all?
*****************
The_Vottanator wrote:
How the HELL did you know that!
**************
I thikn he counted :)
> turbonutter wrote:
> The RGB colour system can show 16,581,375
> colours. Can you really
> tell the difference between the
> all?
*****************
The_Vottanator wrote:
How the HELL did you know that!
**************
I thikn he counted :)
Well what about the system at IMAX in Bradford? That things is literally astounding, an all you need is weird glasses. Not bulky just normal with special lenses. Full colour.
I tell you, it's obvious it's not real but not one of my class could resist reaching out.
I tell you, it's obvious it's not real but not one of my class could resist reaching out.
wierd wonder wrote:
> How do you know all this stuff about RBG, I mean I've only just
> learnt about that in IT!
As I said, trade knowledge. We haven't even done it in IT yet.
You would be very, very surprised at the things I know. As would I, presumably.
> How do you know all this stuff about RBG, I mean I've only just
> learnt about that in IT!
As I said, trade knowledge. We haven't even done it in IT yet.
You would be very, very surprised at the things I know. As would I, presumably.
Your Honour wrote:
> Pb, it's funny you should mention that. One of the lecturers at my
> university is working as part of a group to create a 3D televison
> viewer.
Apparantly it works by projecting light particles out in
> front of the TV by a few inches to create the effect of three
> dimensions.
He reckons that they will have a prototype working in
> the next 5 years and they will be mass produced within 10 years.
They have a similar system WORKING in japan.. jsut in such low res that they're improving it all the time
Sonic
> Pb, it's funny you should mention that. One of the lecturers at my
> university is working as part of a group to create a 3D televison
> viewer.
Apparantly it works by projecting light particles out in
> front of the TV by a few inches to create the effect of three
> dimensions.
He reckons that they will have a prototype working in
> the next 5 years and they will be mass produced within 10 years.
They have a similar system WORKING in japan.. jsut in such low res that they're improving it all the time
Sonic
Pb, it's funny you should mention that. One of the lecturers at my university is working as part of a group to create a 3D televison viewer.
Apparantly it works by projecting light particles out in front of the TV by a few inches to create the effect of three dimensions.
He reckons that they will have a prototype working in the next 5 years and they will be mass produced within 10 years.
Apparantly it works by projecting light particles out in front of the TV by a few inches to create the effect of three dimensions.
He reckons that they will have a prototype working in the next 5 years and they will be mass produced within 10 years.
I think the best idea would be to do away with screens altogether in order to make the graphics more realistic, after all, how can you make something more believable when there's a huge great piece of glass between you and the game?
However, to do this a new type of technology will have to be invented. Holograms just can't cope with the demands of fast moving graphics and have to be pre-created by laser before they can be viewed. Perhaps a system which puts the user 'inside' the tv could be the answer? What? I hear you cry..well....
If you can see images from electrical impulses hitting a screen, lighting up certain elements, then perhaps there is a way to fill the air with similar elements that can be 'hit' from impulses from the floor or walls, thus lighting them up in the space around you. Obviously, this would have to be completely safe, non lethal device, otherwise the company that sells it may just get a little bit sued, but I'm sure there is a way to do it.
However, not being a rocket scientist, I can't vouch that there is a scientific method for bringing this about, just that it makes more sense than trying to
a) fill the room with gas and emitting an expensive hologram projection or
b) pre-rendering all the action and coming up with a 3D version of Space Ace on very expensive equipment.
One day we may look back on TV and laugh at its simplicity, then games will have a truly new image and will be much more lifelike. Until then, we can but dream.
However, to do this a new type of technology will have to be invented. Holograms just can't cope with the demands of fast moving graphics and have to be pre-created by laser before they can be viewed. Perhaps a system which puts the user 'inside' the tv could be the answer? What? I hear you cry..well....
If you can see images from electrical impulses hitting a screen, lighting up certain elements, then perhaps there is a way to fill the air with similar elements that can be 'hit' from impulses from the floor or walls, thus lighting them up in the space around you. Obviously, this would have to be completely safe, non lethal device, otherwise the company that sells it may just get a little bit sued, but I'm sure there is a way to do it.
However, not being a rocket scientist, I can't vouch that there is a scientific method for bringing this about, just that it makes more sense than trying to
a) fill the room with gas and emitting an expensive hologram projection or
b) pre-rendering all the action and coming up with a 3D version of Space Ace on very expensive equipment.
One day we may look back on TV and laugh at its simplicity, then games will have a truly new image and will be much more lifelike. Until then, we can but dream.
Page: