Differences between PS2 and GC hardware? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Differences between PS2 and GC hardware?

02-Dec-2002, 19:01

May i know what are the differences of how PS2 and GC work, seeing as both used small + fast embedded memory. :oops:

Tagrineth

02-Dec-2002, 20:28

Holy crap will this list ever be long. :lol:

I'd start listing things but I have to go home in about five minutes :P

Grall

02-Dec-2002, 22:58

Christ, pretty much EVERYTHING is different, Chap. Except both consoles have two analog sticks per joypad. :D

*G*

03-Dec-2002, 10:44

It would be nice if someone put out a short list on how different PS2 and GC streaming philosophies are. :oops:

Tagrineth

03-Dec-2002, 14:33

Yay, got some time now.

PS2 uses a 300MHz set of three main processors - a MIPS R5900i, and two vector units: VU0 and VU1. Taken as a whole the combo is nicknamed the Emotion Engine. PS2's main RAM, 32MB 400MHz dual-channel DRDRAM, is connected directly to the R5900i.

The whole deal is linked to the GS, via a 1.2GB/sec or so bus.

The GS itself has 16 pixel pipelines, but only 8 TCU's... so with iterated colour (non-textured polys) it achieves a full 16PPC, but with texturing you go down to 8PPC. It also runs at 300MHz, so non-textured fill rate is a stunning 4.8G/s.

The GS has a 2MB embedded buffer with a segmented 2,560 bus: 1,024 bits frame read, 1,024 bits (frame? Not too clear on the write port here) write, and 512 bits texture. The maximum bandwidth on this bus is a ludicrous 48GB/sec (is it half-clocked or something? Me head be swimmin', cos 300 * 2560 / 8 = 96GB/sec...). GS can texture by three methods... 4- and 8-bit CLUT (ouch), and according to FiringSquad, 10:1 JPEG, but JPEG looks like crap and is inefficient because the R5900i has to do some sort of test on all JPEG's passed. Or something like that. ...or at least, that's what I got out of FiringSquad's technical overview of PS2.

The trouble in the GS's embedded buffer lies in a VERY big chunk of that 2MB being burned up by the frame buffer, so the textures per frame can't be too enormous. The only way to alleviate that problem is via streaming the textures from the main RAM through the R5900i across a pathetic 1.2GB/sec to the GS's RAM... which is also shared by vertex data, usually calculated on VU1. That's why the most vibrant, fast graphics on PS2 - Ratchet & Clank, TimeSplitters 2 - use mostly iterated colour. My friend, upon seeing TS2 for the first time on my GCN, immediately commented on how much the textures suck :lol: and that was just in the opening cinematics...

The GCN, on the other hand, has a PowerPC-derived central processor called Gekko... a single unit that runs at 485MHz.

Main RAM is 24MB extremely low-latency 1T-SRAM, with some 2.6GB/sec but an extremely efficient subsystem so while that number sounds low, it IS in fact sustainable most of the time. GCN also has 16MB 'A-RAM', an expandable pool of extremely slow SDRAM capable of some 81MB/sec (81MHz 8-bit). GCN's sole true design flaw IMO... it should've been DDR, or at the very least 16- or 32-bit... o.O;

In any case, the RAM is not directly connected to Gekko at all - rather, it is connected to the LSI named Flipper. Flipper isn't just a graphics processor. It contains all the system's memory controls, and the sound and I/O controllers. Both the memory pools are connected to Flipper (seperately), and Gekko is connected to Flipper via a half-width "1T" bus (1.3GB/sec). Flipper's graphics component has two embedded 1T buffers: one 2MB with some 7 and a half GB/sec for pure frame data, big enough for the system's max, 480p at 24-bit. The other buffer is a 1MB texture cache with about 10.4GB/sec, but this buffer is special - it can hold S3TC, 6:1 compressed textures and work them straight from cache. So the 1MB effectively becomes around 6MB, and the 10.4GB/sec becomes ~62.4GB/sec.

That's a breakdown of the memory subsystems.

Folken

03-Dec-2002, 14:56

GS runs at 150MHz...

Mr. Angry Pants

03-Dec-2002, 16:17

Ow, my brain.

marconelly!

03-Dec-2002, 16:25

Fafalada

03-Dec-2002, 17:15

GS can texture by three methods... 4- and 8-bit CLUT (ouch), and according to FiringSquad, 10:1 JPEG, but JPEG looks like crap and is inefficient because the R5900i has to do some sort of test on all JPEG's passed.
Not that I want to bitch, but where exactly does the idea that JPEG looks 'like crap' come from if I may ask? Surely you've downloaded high quality photographic material from the web before (whatever the content that is of interest to you) and in my experience it's almost always JPEG encoded.
At 10:1 setting, JPEG is virtually lossless, which is very much the opposite from every other texture compression used in realtime applications today.

As for R59k work, it is used to do motion compensation when decoding full MPEG2 streams. I-Picture (Jpeg, essentially) encoded data is handled entirely by IPU.

Phil

03-Dec-2002, 17:56

At 10:1 setting, JPEG is virtually lossless, which is very much the opposite from every other texture compression used in realtime applications today.

As for R59k work, it is used to do motion compensation when decoding full MPEG2 streams. I-Picture (Jpeg, essentially) encoded data is handled entirely by IPU.

So what do the developers tend to use? CLUT or JPEG? I've been in some discussion with a friend about Jak & Daxter's streaming where J. Rubin stated somewhere in an interview that they're pushing the equivilant of 40 MB of textures per frame... since the EE <-> GS bus is pretty limited though, it raises the question how they did it? The work of JPEG compression?

Fafalada

03-Dec-2002, 19:23

So what do the developers tend to use? CLUT or JPEG?
While it can be incredibly usefull when applied right, the IPU unit isn't exactly trivial to use efficiently, so JPEG use is more of a rarity so far.

I've been in some discussion with a friend about Jak & Daxter's streaming where J. Rubin stated somewhere in an interview that they're pushing the equivilant of 40 MB of textures per frame... since the EE <-> GS bus is pretty limited though, it raises the question how they did it?
Hard to say without knowing the context he spoke in. But for instance, if you use the standard 'uncompressed equivalent' context everyone here likes to use, ee<->gs bus allows for well over 100MB/s at 4bits/texel.

Teasy

03-Dec-2002, 19:47

. Rubin stated somewhere in an interview that they're pushing the equivilant of 40 MB of textures per frame... since the EE <-> GS bus is pretty limited though, it raises the question how they did it?

Well, he didn't say it was 40mb of unique textures per frame did he? He could be repeating 2mb from the on-chip video ram 20 times per frame :) But seriously, plenty of that 40mb could just be repeated textures. The GS should be quite good for that since it has a very large bandwidth from its on-chip texture ram. 20mb per frame could be streamed from main ram over the GS bus and the other 20mb per frame could be 2mb repeated 10 times per frame from the on-chip video ram. A very basic example, but you get my point anyway.

Phil

03-Dec-2002, 20:17

That idea actually crossed my mind, but if my memory serves me correct, then the interview was about the engine and how it streames the data across. I believe he was saying that they were pushing the equivilant of 40 MB of textures from EE to GS. Can't be sure though, but I believe this is what he ment.

Also, wouldn't that be quite complicated to manage if you were to reload a specific amount of textures from the on-chip memory and the rest from the main ram?

Hard to say without knowing the context he spoke in. But for instance, if you use the standard 'uncompressed equivalent' context everyone here likes to use, ee<->gs bus allows for well over 100MB/s at 4bits/texel.

Okay.. as I don't hold the interview anymore, I'll have to search the web for it and see what it said specifically. That might tell us more... thanks anyway. :)

Tagrineth

03-Dec-2002, 20:28

Just a few corrections:

The trouble in the GS's embedded buffer lies in a VERY big chunk of that 2MB being burned up by the frame buffer, so the textures per frame can't be too enormous.It's 4MB, not 2MB

Whoops! :oops:

That's why the most vibrant, fast graphics on PS2 - Ratchet & Clank, TimeSplitters 2 - use mostly iterated colour.Those two games are not nearly most vibrant or texture rich games on PS2. Try Burnout 2 instead, or Silent Hill 2, or Baldur's Gate: Dark Aliance. You will see that the texturing and colors in those games are more than adequate, and BO2 and BG:DA also run at perfect 60FPS.

I wasn't trying to point out texture-rich games, and Baldur's Gate is NOT vibrant IMO. Same with Silent Hill.

I'm pointing out R&C and TS2 because they use a very large colour palette and have very vibrant, rich output - not the usual drab-ish limited texture colours (CLUT) that other brilliant-looking PS2 games (MGS2) use - but they don't use very many textures at all, they both rely on mostly iterated colour across a VERY good number of polys.

Although I must concede that Burnout 2 (and Grand Prix Challenge) do have many nice colours and very good visuals. GPC even uses vertical AA... VERY impressive IMO.

Addendum: It just occurred to me that three of the best looking texture-rich PS2 games - Burnout 2, GT3, and GPC - are all racing games

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 00:48

Tagrineth

04-Dec-2002, 01:15

Isn't it 800 Mhz DRDRAM, as well?

One should also note that the flashy, vibrant "look" is not necessarily a definitive prerequisite for potential hardware performance. One could also describe this effect as cartoony, oversaturated/vivid coloring. If the game calls for it artistically, fine, but not all games need or should look like this. TS2 does seem to encroach on this enhanced, cartoony look (not only in the coloring, but the geometric artwork of the characters- it is quite apparent once you realize the intent). It isn't as simple as looking at your typical GC game which has the eye-grabbing, color-saturated cartoon-look and a typical PS2 game which has a more drab, realistic look by comparison and conclude that this indicates a shortcoming in the texture handling of the hardware. It all comes down to the artistic intent. If you want to see the hyper-color look on a PS2 game, they are certainly out there- just got to look into the right genre. Don't expect every game to be like this just because the hardware can, however. The artistic intent is the primary influence, and for most PS2 games that intent is "realism". If you look around you, the world is indeed quite drab-colored on average, compared to any videogame world (unless you are Austin Powers, perhaps).

It's dual-channel 400MHz. DRDRAM is double-clocked (rising/falling edge).

And realism - sure. But realism isn't that drab. Looking around myself I see a decent amount of colour. Everything isn't brown and green :lol:.

I'm not saying that games like MGS2 have 'bad' graphics or technically poor visuals, quite the opposite, MGS2 has some of the most brilliant console graphics to date.

However, they do show off the limitations of CLUT compression somewhat well. :-?

Also, colour quality is really all in the eyes of the beholder. At GameFAQ's, there are two conflicting views of Metroid Prime, for example - one review slammed the game for having 'the most dull colors ever; the consoles are supposed to have lots of colors, where are they in this game?', while another said 'the game's colors are great, lots of variance... the visual difference between the areas is great, you can always tell where you are'. Well those are paraphrased, but you get the idea.

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 01:35

It's dual-channel 400MHz. DRDRAM is double-clocked (rising/falling edge).

By prevailing naming conventions, does that not constitute the memory chips as 800 Mhz DRDRAM? I can see the 400 Mhz as associated with the bus spec, though.

And realism - sure. But realism isn't that drab. Looking around myself I see a decent amount of colour. Everything isn't brown and green :lol:.

Are you living in a place that is typically featured in the industrial-like environments that appear in a PS2 game? Also, I've played quite a few PS2 games that showed more than "brown and green", so I don't know why you cling so much to that jab unless you are exclusively playing one single PS2 game and then making a judgement.

Tagrineth

04-Dec-2002, 01:41

And realism - sure. But realism isn't that drab. Looking around myself I see a decent amount of colour. Everything isn't brown and green :lol:.

Are you living in a place that is typically featured in the industrial-like environments that appear in a PS2 game? Also, I've played quite a few PS2 games that showed more than "brown and green", so I don't know why you cling so much to that jab unless you are exclusively playing one single PS2 game and then making a judgement.

Aw, c'mon, notice the laughing emoticon after the brown and green gag. :P

I live in Florida, as stated under my name in every one of my posts. :) I guess you do have a point though, I do live in a very lovely area, mostly plants everywhere :lol: but anyway, true, but even the industrial areas I've been to (not many, granted) have been a little more varied than MGS2 (for example). Other samples I can think of are Maximo and ICO, and those games didn't strike me as all too realistic, though...

Logan Leonhart

04-Dec-2002, 01:54

Tagrineth

04-Dec-2002, 02:05

I don´t know, I´ve been to a couple of factories and they are everything but colorfull. MGS2´s green and brown colors are like that due to the context. I find unlikely that the U.S. government would take the time to make a cleansing complex pretty. :)

Well, yeah, true, taken in context, MGS2 isn't TOO bad, but it is an extreme case and it does kinda work. But the game certainly has multiple areas?

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 02:08

However, they do show off the limitations of CLUT compression somewhat well.
I am not aware there is any speciffic color intensity limitation with CLUT. It's basically reducing the number of colors in the texture to 16 or 256. Here are some very colorful and lively looking pictures with less than 256 unique colors:

http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-chaos-devotion.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-animal_reign.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-babylona.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-fingers.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-gratitude.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-eden_377.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/02/made-sure_shot.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/06/made-flux.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/06/made-celia.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/07/made-yoriko.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/07/made-the_rage_to_overcome.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/louie/02/louie-me_and_my_little_sister.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/louie/01/louie-allover.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/louie/01/louie-albert.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/louie/02/louie-mr_and_mrs_galor.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/cougar/01/cougar-diogenes.png

Now imagine how easy is it to make, say, grass texture, or brick wall using 256 colors when it's possible to make such complex looking and colorful images with the same amount of colors.

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 02:16

...and before people start picking those pix apart, mind you will be viewing those images on a comparatively color imprecise TV tube, not a computer monitor, and the images will be in motion. So any artifacts you care to pick out will be even less apparent under such conditions. Just note that one can certainly achieve a decent image that has more than "brown and green".

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 02:24

Most of those pictures, except for the last few have no more than 128 unique colors, actually, and they are used to display the whole scene, with variety of different colors. With textures, you can even break image into smaller parts and use different 256 colors in each part, and more often than not, your texture will not be used to present something so complex looking as the whole scene presented in these pictures. (remember, you will be rendering such scene in 16 or 32 bit from many small elements that use less colors)

Tahir2

04-Dec-2002, 02:28

Some of those pics are gorgeous.. :o

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 02:40

With textures, you can even break image into smaller parts and use different 256 colors in each part, and more often than not, your texture will not be used to present something so complex looking as the whole scene presented in these pictures.

That part I didn't know about. Is that really true? Having textures with different CLUTs in the same scene pretty much makes the color limitation issue trivial, doesn't it?

Tagrineth

04-Dec-2002, 02:40

Hmm. Wow. OK so I underestimated CLUT texturing a little... :roll:

I don't think anyone can deny how limited 4-bit CLUT is though. ;)

So why IS it that, on average, PS2 games just don't have great textures compared to XB/GC?

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 02:44

The short answer could be that your assertion is a myth in the first place. :P

The alternate answer is it comes down to the skill in implementing the artwork. Maybe developers just aren't accustomed to really exploring the limits of CLUT capabilities.

Tahir2

04-Dec-2002, 02:58

I just remembered I had one of those pics you posted marconelly ...

The one with the whales ... this was back when I was running Win98SE.

Where did you get them from?? :)

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 03:03

I don't think anyone can deny how limited 4-bit CLUT is though.
You would be *very* surprised what is possible to make using just 16 colors. Especially when you don't need variety of different hues in one image (and for textures, that's more often than not exactly the case)

Some examples of 16 color images:

http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/01/made-bjork.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/02/made-terrifik.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/03/made-amber_v.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/saffron/03/saffron-tytti.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/cougar/01/cougar-monster_head.png

And 32 colors:
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/06/made-high_hope.png
http://www.gfxzone.org/personal/made/07/made-sade.png

So why IS it that, on average, PS2 games just don't have great textures compared to XB/GC?Most games developed exclusively for PS2 by talented developers have more than adequate texturing IMO. Sure, majority of games are sloppily made, quick cash-ins, but if you don't constitute good texturing just as being very colorful and vibrant, there are plenty PS2 games that fit the bill (it's hard to deny that BG:DA or SH2 have very good textures, althought they may not be colorful).

The one with the whales ... this was back when I was running Win98SE.
They are all made by several pixel artists from the computer demo scene. I grabbed these from www.gfxzone.org

Tagrineth

04-Dec-2002, 03:10

Well yeah, those pictures in 16 colours do look pretty good, but they're again kinda drab and monochromatic.

I don't base texture quality solely on colour variance, but it does help spice up visuals a bit.

When everything looks like the same dreary colours over and over and over and over and over, even in different environs, things can get pretty dull... great example of this would be Hybrid Heaven on N64. The overall texturing is VERY good (not counting Diaz's clothes ::shudder:: ), but everything's the same old grays.. the only variety is in a few very noteworthy bits.

I wonder, can a single CLUT texture use multiple lookup tables for different palettes? I'll be surprised if they can't... that'd probably get good results in the hands of a competent artist.

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 03:15

Sure, they look quite monochromatic, but that is what 4 bit textures are used for - adding some geometric looking details to a surface and such.

There are plenty of good looking brick, grass, etc textures in 16 colors. I've seen them someplace but completely forgot where.

Tahir2

04-Dec-2002, 03:19

Way OT but even more impressive
One of the pics above has a hidden message! :o

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 03:24

Oh yes, it's not so uncommon for the author to hide messages in these images :) Sometimes you have to change the pallette to reveal them.

aaaaa00

04-Dec-2002, 03:30

The question is not if you can make great art with CLUT8 and CLUT4 textures -- good artists will be able to work around the limitations of the medium -- the question is how long it takes, and how much effort you expend and how many artists you have to have to do it.

If it takes an artist five times longer to make a texture because he has to optimize it by hand for CLUT4 or CLUT8 pixel by pixel (as is done in that demoscene pixel art), it is not practical for use in a production environment -- especially as level design becomes more complex and the sheer amount of content you need to have to populate a modern game level grows exponentially.

Fafalada

04-Dec-2002, 03:34

Hmm. Wow. OK so I underestimated CLUT texturing a little...
It's not so much underestimating as it's looking at it from completely wrong perspective. The images Marc showed are just that - single image at a time. In a game, you have hundreds of texture images on screen at the same time, each able to have a completely unique palette of 16/256 colors.
Assuming "repetition of color is due to clut" is one of the most absurd misconceptions people I've heard on the web. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Moreover, what you assumed is complete opposite of how it works in real world - colorfull cartoony looking games are pretty much the Best fit for clut texturing.
The maps used in such art styles are low on color gradients, and high on color contrast and transition - which is exactly what clut compression is best used at (particularly 4bit).
Photographic textures with long color gradients is where Clut is at its worst, particularly low color key "drab" looking stuff tends to make perceptual errors the most noticeable :P

And yes, you can reuse the same map with different Cluts, which could potentially be a nice compression. Although this is again something that I could easily see working in a cartoony game, but not so much elsewhere.

DemoCoder

04-Dec-2002, 03:42

Implied lesbian eroticism looks good no matter how many colors used. :)

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 03:43

If it takes an artist five times longer to make a texture...

Yes, now it takes an artist 5x as long and a team of them to pull this off... Maybe it takes a single artist 30 secs to click an autopallette button, examine the results, and custom tweak the pallette a bit?

You'd think all the Xbox developers threw up their hands in retreat when they found out you had to actually piece together some shader assembly code to use the "higher functions" in the XGPU. Everything requires some amount of expertise for good results.

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 03:56

The images Marc showed are just that - single image at a time. In a game, you have hundreds of texture images on screen at the same time, each able to have a completely unique palette of 16/256 colors.
Yes, I made sure to point that out. That really seems to be a common misconception.

aaaaa00

04-Dec-2002, 04:02

If it takes an artist five times longer to make a texture...

Yes, now it takes an artist 5x as long and a team of them to pull this off... Maybe it takes a single artist 30 secs to click an autopallette button, examine the results, and custom tweak the pallette a bit?

I don't think an autopallette function will give results as nice as that pixel art.

My point is that you can't expect artists to apply the same level of quality for every texture in the game as demonstrated by the pixel art Marconelly posted.

If it's much easier just to use 24-bit source art, then crunch it using JPG or S3TC for similar results, then you should go ahead and do that instead.

Fafalada

04-Dec-2002, 04:28

I don't think an autopallette function will give results as nice as that pixel art.
I'd show you what our quantizer does if I had some web space to upload to. (multimania appears to be down :( )

Besides, 2x2VQ tends to generate more color errors then Clut8 and people still generally used the autocompression with it - rarely if ever you need to handtune those.
4bit Clut is different, thogh people still just use it with automatic conversion more often then not - which does sometimes result in poor looking stuff.

randycat99

04-Dec-2002, 04:31

Yes of course, it is somewhere in between, and that is certainly manageable. Point is, no need to shoot down a perfectly valid technique with some farfetched assertion, just because you don't like the technique.

04-Dec-2002, 11:31

Good to see fafalada again!
Anyone with good GC knowledge around? 8)

PC-Engine

04-Dec-2002, 11:53

Hey chap, I've noticed you've changed these :oops: into these 8)

Why the sudden change of heart? :lol:

Colourless

04-Dec-2002, 15:27

Now people, you have forgotten something. CLUT really sucks when mipmapping. The lower mip levels with either become horribly aliased or the texture will become discoloured and details will be lost. Most games tend to autogenerate mipmaps at run time but with CLUT textures you need to pregenerate them to make sure that everything is correct.

Bowie

04-Dec-2002, 17:35

CLUT is nothing new to video game artists so I doubt mipmapping is any trouble for them. PSX, Saturn, and Voodoo Glide games used CLUT too. Another thing is, Dreamcast's PowerVQ and S3tc texture formats are CLUT based algorithms.

04-Dec-2002, 18:30

GC! GC! GC! :oops:

Thowllly

04-Dec-2002, 19:07

Now I have to post a few 256 color pictures too... sorry to all 56k'ers... :)

http://195.114.229.132/gallery/11/gfx/ELECTRON-WoodFish.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/10/gfx/SKETCH-Krysia.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/8/gfx/LAZUR-Crossing.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/2/gfx/dragoninflames.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/8/gfx/LAZUR-Elmore.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/8/gfx/LAZUR-Eye.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/5/gfx/grs_wood.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/8/gfx/LAZUR-Fairyland.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/5/gfx/sunrise.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/8/gfx/LAZUR-Gimenez.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/5/gfx/metal.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/9/gfx/LAZUR-RedAutumn.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/9/gfx/LAZUR-UpadlaMonaLisa.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/6/gfx/BEAST-Fish.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/9/gfx/LAZUR-Whirl.gif
http://195.114.229.132/gallery/5/gfx/temporal.gif

I once saw a really cool drawing of two cherries splashing into water. It was only 16 colors but looked really good anyway. Unfortunately I was unable to find it. Does anybody here know what picture I'm talking about? I would be very grateful for a link...

marconelly!

04-Dec-2002, 21:42

Thowllly, I know *exactly* what picture you are talking about and I could swear I had it somewhere. However, I can't find it no matter how hard I try right now. That's weird beause I have everything organized and I'm sure I wouldn't delete it if I indeed had it. Perhaps I've seen it on someone else's computer long time ago.

Anyways, here's another 16 color picture that also looks very impressive:

http://members.fortunecity.com/jozefx/steelwing.gif

PC-Engine

04-Dec-2002, 22:05

Dithering is not a mystery :wink:

On a tv it probably won't be very noticable though.