14 May
2007
14 May
'07
3:40 a.m.
About 3 years ago I announced to the list a little something I'd done
with an IBM PC/XT with CGA that was unconventional for the platform
(full-motion video using stock hardware). I recently gave a talk at a
hacker convention on the complete methodology of how I did it, and the
video of that talk is now available here:
http://www.archive.org/details/8088CorruptionExplained
Just thought some people here would be curious to see how it was
accomplished. While there are several versions of the video to choose
from, if you have the bandwidth you should grab the MPEG-2 version (big)
because it's DVD quality and best preserves some of the detail necessary
to properly appreciate the piece. (In fact, it looks best burnt to a
DVD and watched on a television proper.)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
14 May
14 May
10:46 a.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
from, if you have the bandwidth you should grab the
MPEG-2 version (big)
because it's DVD quality and best preserves some of the detail necessary
to properly appreciate the piece. (In fact, it looks best burnt to a
DVD and watched on a television proper.)
I've often wondered about claims like that. Surely it only looks best watched
on a TV proper if the TV is the same aspect ratio as the MPEG, some factor of
the framerate, and some factor of the frame dimensions? Otherwise don't you
get all sorts of strange image glitches?
10:27 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Jim Leonard wrote:
Since the MPEG-2 was mastered for (and on!) an NTSC DVD player connected
to an NTSC television, and since I am 100% happy with the quality of
that master, that's why I made that comment. It's not like there's a
ton of variables; if you play NTSC on NTSC, or PAL on PAL, it looks
good... if not, it looks odd or bad (or fine, if you can't notice that
sort of thing). It will either look perfect or most definitely not correct.
Broadcast standards aside, the video contains some single-pixel detail
elements that have been blended out or otherwise lost in all of the
other conversions, so that's another reason I mentioned it.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
from, if you have the bandwidth you should grab
the MPEG-2 version
(big) because it's DVD quality and best preserves some of the detail
necessary to properly appreciate the piece. (In fact, it looks best
burnt to a DVD and watched on a television proper.)
I've often wondered about claims like that. Surely it only looks best
watched on a TV proper if the TV is the same aspect ratio as the MPEG,
some factor of the framerate, and some factor of the frame dimensions?
Otherwise don't you get all sorts of strange image glitches? 
15 May
15 May
1:06 a.m.
At 07:40 PM 5/13/2007, you wrote:
About 3 years ago I announced to the list a little
something I'd done with
an IBM PC/XT with CGA that was unconventional for the platform
(full-motion video using stock hardware). I recently gave a talk at a
hacker convention on the complete methodology of how I did it, and the
video of that talk is now available here:
http://www.archive.org/details/8088CorruptionExplained
Just thought some people here would be curious to see how it was
accomplished. While there are several versions of the video to choose
from, if you have the bandwidth you should grab the MPEG-2 version (big)
because it's DVD quality and best preserves some of the detail necessary
to properly appreciate the piece. (In fact, it looks best burnt to a DVD
and watched on a television proper.)
I have a CompuPro 8088 S-100 board. Maybe a ISA/S-100 bridge is in order. : )
This is a very distracting thought...
Very nice video. Good work.
Grant
5:53 a.m.
New subject: Giant LED Displays - Re: Motion video on an IBM PC/XT - Methodology
At 07:40 PM 5/13/2007, you wrote:
About 3 years ago I announced to the list a little
something I'd done with
an IBM PC/XT with CGA that was unconventional for the platform
(full-motion video using stock hardware). I recently gave a talk at a
hacker convention on the complete methodology of how I did it, and the
video of that talk is now available here:
http://www.archive.org/details/8088CorruptionExplained
This whole discussion has reminded me of an unfinished project of mine, a
192x99, 19,008 pixel LED display. I have not manufactured the driver
circuits, but they have been designed.
The display is organized/refreshed as 11x1728. 8x11 characters look very
good to me, so I designed it to handle 24 wide by 9 high characters.
Here are pictures of it:
Front: http://www.stockly.com/images2/060129-LED_Display_Front_2718.jpg
Back: http://www.stockly.com/images2/060129-LED_Display_Back_2716.jpg
Weight of all the
legs: http://www.stockly.com/images2/060129-Weight_of_39584_Legs_2696.jpg
As you can see from the pictures it is as big as a couch. : )
I built it in the spirit of blinkin lights for my Altair. 19008 LEDs is
2376 bytes, 71280 bytes a second at 30 frames. The altair should be able
to handle this...??? Any ideas?
I would really love if it could handle a shade or two of grey. : ) I'm
considering now building a driver out of an FPGA. It would be able to
handle a fast refresh rate and frame rate in order to get grey scales. I
was thinking 4 shades would be enough. The FPGA might even be able to act
as the dual port SRAM for the bitmap display? Any ideas how I should
proceed? : )
You can find my thread on this on USENET called "Wall of RAM". I have
copied it here:
http://www.stockly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21
Grant
6448
days inactive
6449
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
grant＠stockly.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
trixter＠oldskool.org