about the C64 palette being washed out
there is a thing that is not the palette: one color in a tile can be picked from 16 colors. and then 3 colors are the SAME all over the screen.
this means C64 graphics is one individual color combined ("washed out") with the other three colors that are SAME on the entire screen
there are other modi for photo but this one is the gamer mode.
so. for example on the MSX a tree has two green colors. while on C64 that is not possible.
it would be possible if one of the THREE global colors would be set up to green. but many games need the 3 colors for something else. sky color, gray and brown.
Yes and as said in the article, it was not an artistic choice but economical (in transistors).
To me it looks almost as if the text says
Which they were able to do, because they had "total control over hue, saturation and luminance". It was only a matter of selecting the resistor values. And to lower the number of resistors, some colors are the exact opposite side of the color wheel, which is called "complementary colors", which is, according to the internet, a kind of an artistic thing or something.
If you don't get the idea, you'll surely trust what Alfred H. Wikipedia says on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_colors
The use of complementary colors is an important aspect of aesthetically pleasing art and graphic design.
So there, it is a scientifically proven fact that the C64 color palette is artistic.
Science tries to find the logical rules that explain and demonstrate a fact or an event, art is directly linked to the personal feelings and emotions of the author who creates music, graphics, etc.. OR the spectator who appreciates it also in an emotional personal way. Science leads to logic and rationalism, art leads to emotion and spiritualism, they are two different worlds!
So, answering to an emotional approach of the C64 colors by a scientific approach seems me very strange... especially when the real main reason of the choosen colors is nor science nor art but money!
Doesn't the statement by the chip designer clearly say that money (reducing resistor count) was not the only consideration? Rather, that it was only a secondary factor, and that in those cases they are on opposing sides of the colour wheel. Which still gives it nice artistic properties, despite saving $$$.
This seems to me the main reason first displays were monochrome.
this reminds me of something
one day I read in wikipedia that the MSX color numbers are random, got no appearant pattern.
ok now lets crack the pattern
it started out with the plain RGBI palette!
and then the most unimportant colors, color 6 dark cyan and color 12 dark magenta, were replaced by a third red and a third green.
the bits in a color number mean this:
bit 0: intensity
bit 1: green
bit 2: blue
bit 3: red
all colors fit this pattern, except the third red color 6 and the third green color 12.
change bit 0 to change intensity:
color 0,1 black
color 2,3 green
color 4,5 blue
color 6,7 exception, dark cyan replaced
color 8,9 red
color 10,11 yellow
color 12,13 exception, dark magenta replaced
color 14,15 white
and in the end the whole idea is turned to milky colors like atari commodore.
Yes and as said in the article, it was not an artistic choice but economical (in transistors).
To me it looks almost as if the text says
Which they were able to do, because they had "total control over hue, saturation and luminance". It was only a matter of selecting the resistor values. And to lower the number of resistors, some colors are the exact opposite side of the color wheel, which is called "complementary colors", which is, according to the internet, a kind of an artistic thing or something.
If you don't get the idea, you'll surely trust what Alfred H. Wikipedia says on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_colors
The use of complementary colors is an important aspect of aesthetically pleasing art and graphic design.
So there, it is a scientifically proven fact that the C64 color palette is artistic.
to me this means this : ' we had total freedom in choice of colors, meaning that no one had defined which colors to use, but we were limited to the constrain to minimize die size'. Thus it was not an artistic choice , but instead an economical one.
Science tries to find the logical rules that explain and demonstrate a fact or an event, art is directly linked to the personal feelings and emotions of the author who creates music, graphics, etc.. OR the spectator who appreciates it also in an emotional personal way. Science leads to logic and rationalism, art leads to emotion and spiritualism, they are two different worlds!
So, answering to an emotional approach of the C64 colors by a scientific approach seems me very strange... especially when the real main reason of the choosen colors is nor science nor art but money!
fully agree!
If I dare throw another fly in the ointment, I'm not persuaded by that interview; the engineer alleges that:
we had total control over hue, saturation and luminance
Yet the exact same page establishes that C64 colour is two dimensional, each colour resulting from two selections: luminance and colour phase. You can't get free selection in a real-valued 3d space from a 2d input.
If I dare throw another fly in the ointment, I'm not persuaded by that interview; the engineer alleges that:
we had total control over hue, saturation and luminance
Yet the exact same page establishes that C64 colour is two dimensional, each colour resulting from two selections: luminance and colour phase. You can't get free selection in a real-valued 3d space from a 2d input.
Oh yeah. Let's see... On MSX.org today: TomH debunks clearly false Commodore 64 related claims made by some engineer called Bob Yannes. :) Tough battle expected! MSX users aren't easily persuaded!