Talk:List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mattel Aquarius[edit]

At http://atariage.com/forums/topic/227441-aquarius-information-about-correct-ypbpr-colours-from-the-palette/ we can have accurate information about the colour palette used on Mattel Aquarius, but i have no idea how to convert it to YPbPr colourspace format - if anyone can help, please do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofurano (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The values seem to translate into HSB space. If you use Chroma phase (HUE) 90º as red (like on this NTSC diagram: http://www.antiqueradio.org/art/RCACT-100IQColorCircle.jpg ) , you get RGB as(setting both lightness and saturation to max):

  • Red - 255,055,000
  • Green - 000,255,132
  • Yellow - 183,255,000
  • Blue - 072,000,255
  • Magenta - 255,000,123
  • Cyan - 000,179,255

Don't know if this helps or not. At least, it's somewhat similar to the few images I've seen such as http://atariage.com/forums/uploads/monthly_11_2010/post-20571-129088974791_thumb.jpg There's also info about the saturation / luminance values that will get better results.

Anyway, I added http://atariage.com/forums/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-3819-0-00736800-1405189983.jpg as reference in the main article.4throck (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mattel Aquarius color palette has 15 or 16 colors? --2403:6200:8837:2083:94CA:664D:1B0:59AB (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please would an interested editor assess the table added at User:Nitrofurano/List of 8-bit computer hardware palettes, incorporate it if useful, blank the remaining content on the user page as WP:FAKEARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM PC[edit]

Why is there something about the 16 bit IBM PC in here?

The reason is that the original IBM PC launched in 1981 had an Intel 8088 CPU that was 8-bit data bus technology. Now, this is noted out in the article.
To check for 16-bits IBM AT (and better) palettes, please visit List of 16-bit computer hardware palettes. And please, sign your postings.Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IBM PC had an 8 bit data bus but a 16 bit processor (and the XT a 16 bit data bus as well) so it would still seem to be better placed under the 16 bit article with the rest of the PC palettes. 58.178.196.103 (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main criteria to distinguish an 8-bit from a 16-bit computer architecture is its data bus, not its internal registers' size, due to the CPU doesn't live alone inside a given computer. The IBM XT was a true 16-bit architecture, but it still features the original CGA; remember that the article deals with color graphic capabilities, not general capabilities, so the IBM XT fits well here yet. The EGA and better display adapters came with the IBM AT family, which features an 80286 pure 16-bit processor and bus, so their palettes are placed under List of 16-bit computer hardware palettes. Remember: not "PC palettes" but "CGA, EGA, VGA, etc., palettes". Yours. ---Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's the data-bus' size because there were PC clones that used the 8086 and that had a 16-bit bus, yet using your criteria they are "8-bit" computers. In fact, using your criteria, I can name a few personal computers that had 8-bit CPUs (Z80, etc.) but 16-bit busses, and those would be misclassified as well. As previously noted, word size is the defining characteristic of "size" of a computer, and for that the PC was most definitely a 16-bit machine. CGA should really be moved to the 16-bit article. --Trixter (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word size has a lot more of an effect on the general purpose usage of the computer which is what most people will use to determine if a computer is 8 or 16 bit without much regard to the data bus (not many will call a Pentium II a 64 bit computer) so those looking for information on IBM PC graphics are more likely to look under 16 bit for everything related to the PC which includes CGA, MDA, Hercules, the PCjr's graphics card and not just EGA, MCGA, VGA, etc.211.26.235.163 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid confussion, I had cross-linked the "IBM sections" in the two articles. Again, this series of articles aren't focused on the main systems' capabilities but in the colors in itself and the methods to produce them in every enumerated system. There are specific articles devoted to the various personal computers and display adapters cited, all of them linked from here. Also, no info is provided here about PC display hardware as Hercules Graphics Card or IBM PCjr due to they do not include different color modes (not graphic modes!) aside of those found in the MDA and CGA (the technical reason is that these adapters shared the same expensive IBM monitors). Finally, due to the technical and historical context, the CGA for the original PC/XT still belongs to the 8-bit article. So don't think about "PC palettes" anymore. And please, identify yourself next time. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CGA needs to be moved to the 16-bit article. VGA is there, and IBM made a VGA card for the IBM PC, so are you now saying that VGA should be here in the 8-bit article as well? Please move CGA to the 16-bit article. --Trixter (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, (and I hope the last time), you're still confusing the original IBM PC with any other PC compatible. The VGA was developed by IBM for its PS/2 line, which was microchannel bus, not ISA bus. Non-IBM, compatible VGA and Super VGA cards with 16-bit ISA bus cannot be attached to the original 8-bit ISA bus of the original IBM PC (as Hercules card could). So never was an original IBM PC shipped with VGA (neither from IBM or any of its competitors). Period.
Only add a last note to say that, following your criteria, many of the palettes listed under List of monochrome and RGB palettes also belong to the 16-bit PC section. Bye. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this illustrates why your criteria is inconsistent. As previously pointed out, by people other than me, the word size of the CPU is what most people use to determine the size of the machine. Since the 8088 is a 16-bit CPU, CGA should go into the 16-bit section. Since you cannot deny that the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU (word size was 16-bits, registers are 16-bits, etc.) then how can you continue to justify CGA belongs in the 8-bit section? --Trixter (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm still unhappy about the 8-bit placement, the disclaimer you added to the article explains the 8-bit classification adequately (by time period). It's enough to leave it alone, I suppose.
Still, poll one hundred people whether or not the IBM PC was an 8-bit machine or a 16-bit machine and I *highly* doubt you'll find more than 5 or 10 people calling it an 8-bit machine. --Trixter (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You just won your first citation needed tag! X-D. But seriously... For the Wikipedia, it is indifferent that a hundred or a zillion people say anything; reliable sources are always needed to backup any assertion. Please visit the 8-bit article; it states that Intel 8088 (the CPU what the original IBM PC shipped in) was a 8-bit processor (with a note that it was only 8-bit externally). Do you want to start another discussion there? Up to you. And if your hundred people read first about the original IBM PC in the Wikipedia, maybe your statistic changes dramatically... Wikipedia spreads knowledge! ;-) -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same 8088 article states it has 16-bit registers, which is a 16-bit word size, which is a 16-bit processor. For your education, consult Word_size. Even the 8-bit article makes a note that it was the external data bus was the only 8-bit part, which does not make it an 8-bit CPU. The article states "An 8-bit processor can access 8 bits of data in a single operation, as opposed to a 16-bit processor, which can access 16 bits of data in a single operation." which obviously the 8088 does (ie. ADD AX,BX clearly accesses all 16 bits of both 16-bit registers in a single operation). So don't go throwing accusations of improper research when you yourself are contradicting that very research.
The description of CGA's capabilities in the computer hardware palettes article is very good and sound. I very much like and enjoy the information presented in the article... it's just in the wrong article, that's all. I don't want it removed, simply moved to the proper article. You have not provided sufficient justification for your assessment that the IBM PC was an 8-bit personal computer. --Trixter (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you count a CPU 16 bit because it has 16 bit registers, then the Motorola 68000 could also be counted as 32 bit CPU because it has 32 bit registers. However, the 68000 is considered a 16 bit cpu since it has a 16 bit data bus. --Fröhn (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From where can access a 16-bit word the 8088 in the original IBM PC architecture? From its main heap RAM not, of course, due to the 8-bit data bus. What the processor in itself was able to interchange a 16-bit word from register to register, no doubt. We are not discussing about the 8088 (Do we are?). But a computer is much more than its processor. The Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga both shipped a Motorola 68000, which was a true 32-bit CPU, but were inserted into 16-bit data buses. So both machines (at least, their original versions) stated and rivaled as 16-bit machines in the whole press in the 16-bit age circa 1990, and this way were sold by their respective brands. Can you give similar (and reliable) proofs that the original 1981 IBM PC was considered anytime a 16-bit machine (not XT, AT, PS/2 or another compatible, only the original one)?
I lack the desire to do so, so I suppose your use of "8-bit" to denote "a range of time" will stand. --Trixter (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And up to date, you have not filled your wiki user page, so I don't know who are you. You can visit my profile, in order to avoid nearly personal attacks. Thanks for your words about the CGA. See you ;-) -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To date I have not made a personal attack against you. If that's how you're taking this, we're done talking. We want the same thing: Accurate information. We disagree and have been discussing it. Nothing personal. I have intentionally not populated my user page because I endeavor never to make any of these discussions personal. --Trixter (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Tracing your talk page, I discovered some facts about your contributions to the Wikipedia: you have been explicitely pointed to have a conflict of interests and you are "honored" with the most large template for deletion I ever seen! But ironically, you mantain a web about videogames in which my personal profile appears![1] Do you have granted permission to put my photo there? This photo were published by the Spanish magazine "PC mania". The website you link to, www.speccy.org, had granted this permission, and the personal mine too. I invite you to delete the image by yourself. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read that more carefully; the conflict of interest and template for deletion is for MobyGames itself and other people who have acted, not me personally. I am not part of that conflict (and ironically never can be because of "conflict of interest", which prevents me from the basic civil right of defending myself). But all of that has nothing to do with our debate about whether or not the IBM PC is or was considered an 8-bit personal computer. I suppose we will never agree, as you consider the first IBM PC to be in the same class of machines as the Apple and Vic 20 and will never change your mind. If I move the information myself you will simply move it back and we will have a reversion war, which is pointless. --Trixter (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for your image, it has been removed at your request. It was contributed by a user, so your dispute should really be with the user and not MobyGames (just as it would be with wikipedia), but if you wish to single me out, that's your prerogative. --Trixter (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to attend my complain about my photo. About MG website and you: I'm always curious about people who I'm discussing with. You have not filled your user page, so I followed your talk page and I found the tags there. I followed the links to MG, I found my photo there, and I became a bit furious. But both of us acted polite, so no future attacks will be expected. Sorry my parlance, I'm not a native English speaker and maybe my words were not tuned enough. I explicitely state here that there is nothing personal about our discussion. We can agree to end it in the basis: a) original 1981 IBM PC have *partially* 8-bit technology (its data bus); b) it was launched in a wave of 8-bit machines; c) all these facts are noted in summaries, with appropiate disclaimers; d) both articles are adecuately cross-linked; e) it was launch by IBM to compete against an 8-bit machine, the Apple II, and this was a brand war (the giant IBM vs. a little company named Apple), not a technology war (16-bit vs. 8-bit); f) parallelism exist between the 32-bit CPU/16-bit data bus of Atari ST and Amiga cases, and g) up to date, neither you and any of your supporters have presented any source to discuss about. But in the future, if new proofs arise to change my criteria, I'll do the change by myself. Bye. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a note (not much of one) about the fact that the PCjr could display all 16 CGA colours in 320*200 graphics mode and there probably should be short mentions of the 16 bit hardware that used more generic palettes with no implementation specific details (and a hyperlink to the generic palette). But either way, the original PC is considered by most people to have been a 16 bit machine and therefore should be in the 16 bit article, just because you think the data bus and not the machine word should be used does not mean that anyone else on the planet thinks that way.210.50.247.120 (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IBM PCjr (and Tandy 1000 series) section added, with screen simulations. All hyperlynks already available under 8514/A and XGA and Super VGA sections of the List of 16-bit computer hardware palettes article, so no changes needed. Finally, if you'll put a phrase like "Most people considered..." in an article, you'll automatically win a "citation needed" tag. If you can give some authoritative proof or source that a given computer's architecture is determined by its processor's word size only instead of the interconnectig internal data bus (the 16-bit article doesn't clarify this point, and it doesn't cite any source or reference; the summary of Commodore Amiga will give to you a sharper idea about your intended "majority" should mean —in the Amiga's case was the whole press), and the majority of other wikipedians agree with, I'll move the original IBM PC section to its 16-bit counterpart palette's list article. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Coupé[edit]

The Sam Coupé from MGT (Miles Gordon Technology) was an 8 bit and should probably be listed. Any takers ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sircompo (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In advance, any 8-bit related machine with a propietary color palette fits well here; only B&W (as ZX81) machines not. The actual list is far from being complete, and some other representative cases (as the Atari 400/800 XL) are welcome. In fact, machines not listed here are due to lack of info enough to write an enciclopedic section of the subject. If you wish to see the Sam Coupé or any other interesting machine, please provide technical info (refs, URLs, etc.), or edit the page yourself. Yours. Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ricardo, i added some information there about Sam-Coupé, and also about BBC-Micro and Thomson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofurano (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SamCoupe has a palette of 128 colours, and their display modes can display up to 16 colours simultaneously (without line interuption). The 128 colour space is 64x2, which means it takes 1/4 of the 512 colour space. There are 2 most significant bits for each rgb primary, and a third less significant bit for all rgb primaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.183.225 (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YPbPr in 8-bit computers!?[edit]

"Many of early video chips output composite video YPbPr colors, sometimes inaccurately referred as YUV colors."

This is utter and complete nonsense. There is no such thing as "composite YPbPr". Composite video is a quadrature-modulated YIQ (NTSC) or YUV (PAL) signal, nothing else. YPbPr is a component format and was introduced with SMPTE 240M in the mid/late 1980s, after the Apple II and C64. No old video game console uses YPbPr, internally or otherwise.

"YUV is the color specification used for PAL TV systems, not for composite video;"

Nonsense. PAL is broadcast as RF-modulated composite video, as is NTSC. The author of that line seems to be in complete confusion about what "composite video" is.

"Also, when seen on TV devices through a RF modulator, the perception of these colors may be not corresponding with the original YPbPr ones (most noticiable with NTSC TV color system, due to its YIQ color space plane is not one-to-one compatible with YPbPr and YUV)."

An RF modulator just modulates a baseband composite signal onto a radio frequency carrier --- the same television receiver will produce the same color no matter if fed a baseband composite NTSC or RF-modulated composite NTSC signal.

I guess I'll have to correct this once I have the time. NewRisingSun (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's YUV/YIQ. YPbPr is only one step in the color conversion line from YUV/YIQ to RGB. Most video IC's with a composite output do not even have RGB or YPbPr as source, because they simply phase shift the color carrier of the composite signal to produce the different chroma values. Fröhn (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, I'm talking about "color specifications", not "electrical" nor "signal" specifications. That means: YUV not equal to YPbPr not equal to YIQ. Check the articles for the conversion formulae. I already know that PAL/NTSC/SECAM are RF broadcasted, but the article isn't focused on TV. Original models of early computers (as Apple II) couldn't be plugged directly to TV sets, but to manufacturer's ad hoc monitors. That is, they didn't ship built-in RF modulators. Third party manufacturers provide cheap RF modulators, very susceptible to noise, which slighty changed colors, more or less. That kind of facts are what we're talking about. Maybe edition is needed to avoid confussion. Yours. --82.130.195.150 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you justify calling them "YPbPr composite colors." They're not generated that way, and how they're decoded in the monitor is irrelevant. They're generated using phase shifts in YIQ or YUV space, or in simpler cases, just blasting raw bits out the video line. If you want to specify them in YPbPr, that's fine, but calling them YPbPr colors is bogus and deceptive. 24.4.198.162 (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love how this YPbPr nonsense is still all over the article.... true experts here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.156.22 (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article still full YPbPr references? Most if not all of these machines used composite video output, not component video output, so YPbPr has nothing to do with these devices. Also, all of the charts that reference YPbPr values show colors that aren't even close to the colors that were actually displayed on these machines. If you look at screenshots of actual Commodore or Apple displays (such as the Commodore 64 screenshot in this very article) you'll see the colors were much more vibrant than the YPbPr colors listed. AridWaste (talk) 03:40, 24 Nov 2017 (UTC)

I've corrected the information. TreeNamedUser (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atari 8 bit modes[edit]

The Atari 8 bit computers (400, 800, 600XL, 800XL, 1200XL, 800XE, 65XE, 130XE ...) use a composite output and have a palette of 128 colors (8 lumas * 16 chromas). Following bitmap modes exist:

CTIA/GTIA video chip:

320x192 in 2 colors (monochrome). The chroma for both colors is the same but can be any of the 16 chromas, lumas can be selected without restrictions.

160x192 in 4 colors. Those 4 colors can be chosen from the 128 color palette without restrictions.

GTIA only:

80x192, 16 lumas/1 chroma (monochrome). Unlike the normal 128 color palette this mode allows 16 lumas, but all 16 luma levels are forced to have the same chroma.

80x192, 1 luma/16 chromas. All chromas can be used, but all of them share the same luminance. Pretty useless mode :)

80x192, 9 colors. The 9 colors can be chosen from the 128 color palette without restrictions.

If you wish you can make all modes 200 pixels high, on Atari it's simply a matter of adding more entries to the display list which builds up the screen. It's just that on Atari for some reason 40x24 characters had become standard althought it could easily do 40x25 too.

Also, there is another mode which can be created by a special display list which alternates the 16 luma and the 16 chroma mode every rasterline. Because PAL decoding mixes chroma 50:50 from one rasterline to the other, a 256 color mode with 80x96 pixels resolution can be created without CPU intervention. The downsides of this mode is: Every 2nd rasterline has luminance 0 (almost black) which reduces brightness, and every other rasterline has chrominance 0 (greyscale) which reduces saturation. Fröhn (talk) 9:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Commodore[edit]

Commodore 128[edit]

Commodore 128, in VDC mode MOS_Technology_VDC, should be mentioned, either in a section on its onw or along the CGA discussion. Senbei64 —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore VIC-20[edit]

Why the color light cyan (no. 11) uses white text?

Because the color contrast for light cyan on white is internally done to use for failing WCAG 2.0 with contrast ratio less than 2.0, no joke and no need to require WCAG AA or AAA level (like the combination for the hexadecimal color code for #87d6dd, as opposed to light green (no. 13)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8837:6844:E5AB:FB9C:6CBB:48BB (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The color contrast ratio for light cyan on white is about 1.65, as opposed to light green on white with the contrast ratio of 1.58.
The relative luminance for light cyan is darker than light green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8837:6844:E5AB:FB9C:6CBB:48BB (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! I fixed the color contrast via multiple color contrast fix!!! --2403:6200:8937:9ECE:65C2:69C4:DFA:D05A (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Classifications[edit]

At some point, the "8-bit computer", "16-bit computer", etc. denotation should be ditched and something more accurate should be used for a division, like fixed palette vs. flexible palette. That would eliminate any debate over which video subsystem belongs in which article.

One issue that illustrates this is "IBM AT" video subsystem being defined in the "16-bit" article. An assumption is made that the AT shipped with EGA (it was optional) and also that EGA was not available for the original IBM PC (it was, after the launch of the AT). A "fixed palette" vs. "flexible palette" division would eliminate this by properly documenting EGA functionality and not getting hung up on which system it could or could not be inserted into.

Also, a poster above is incorrect in stating that VGA was only available for microchannel systems. IBM, and many others, released 8-bit VGA cards suitable for the original IBM PC. So this is another example of where the system classification is simply a bad way to categorize things. --Trixter (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No British machines![edit]

Why is there no data for British-origin machines such as the ZX Spectrum or BBC Micro? Can anyone get data for these machines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.144.241 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Micro has around 8 or 9 screen modes, using 2, 4 or 16 colours, without colour clash, in resolutions like 160x256, 320x256 and 640x256 - one of the screen modes, in text mode, is very close to Teletext or Minitel - the colour palette is very similar to the 8 colours fullbright from zx-spectrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofurano (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Micro image is very poor as it doesn't use any form of dithering, making it look like a colour limited version of the Spectrum screen, the below three images show a better rendering in mode 0 (640x512, 2 colours), mode 1 (320x256, 4 colours) and mode 2 (160x256, 16 colours, but 8 are flashing).

(Well I would, but Wikipedia isn't letting me upload files) Tautology0 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TI 99/4a and TMS99x8 chips[edit]

The TI 99/4a home computer should be mentioned alongside the MSX systems, since they used the same video chip. Later MSX systems used upgraded chips, as mentioned in the article. rhyre (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSX "no apparent order"[edit]

Re "There is no apparent logic in this color selection."

The MSX palette looks very clearly to be bitmapped as Red:Green:Blue:Intensity, if you read "dark red" as "dark cyan" and "dark green" as "dark maganta" - which visually they are.

Jgharston (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astute obversation! TreeNamedUser (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MSX uses the TMS9918 chip, so it has a composite palette. Values are sourced from the datasheet, although conversion might not be 100% correct.
If you can do a better conversion feel free to add it. One user has tried it on the Texas Instruments TMS9918 article. 4throck (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSX2+ Screen12 (YJK) palette seems incomplete[edit]

The screen-12 of the MSX2+ has 19268 colors. But the palette shown at the right side of the macaw image shows only 5075 colors (counted using GIMP Colors->Info->ColorCube Analysis). Is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.25.198 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CGA images don't match[edit]

Have a look at the black, cyan, magenta, and light grey image. Now have a look at the 16 colour image. Why is the perch light grey in one image but not in the other image? Also, why are the bright and dark versions of the palette using what seems to be the same image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlKenner (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues[edit]

Added that remark, because the article lacks references. I don't doubt the information, since it comes mostly for each computer's individual page, but it needs at least one reference by machine.

Another issue is the simulation of actual palette values in arbitrary color spaces. How where those values calculated? The original machines outputted RGB or YUV/YIQ, that was then converted into PAL or NTSC. That's the only thing to take into account.

Where do the YPbPr values come from? And why use them, since they have little real world value? This is obvious by looking at the C64 entry, where the NTSC captures image show a very different result than the simulation.

An in the case of multiple monitors being used, shouldn't both outputs be shown (like RGB x NTSC composite) ? 4throck (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YPbPr to RGB conversion?[edit]

I know there are conversion formulas you can find for YUV and YCbCr to RGB all over the net, but I have yet to find one for YPbPr to RGB. I believe it uses different weighting factors for the color channels, but I have yet to find any documentation on it. I was going to create a program in VB6 that uses the Commodore64 color palette, but I need to convert your YPbPr numbers (in the range of -1 to +1) to RGB numbers (in the range of 0 to 255). I do not know any proper conversion formula for YPbPr to RGB, and there none on the internet that I can find with a Google search. Can someone here on Wikipedia please post the proper formula on this page about 8-bit computer color palettes? Benhut1 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I FINALLY found a webpage that has all YCC to RGB converion formulas, including YPbPr. http://www.equasys.de/colorconversion.html I'm going to include this link in the main article as well, so people who are writing software for converting images into Commodore 64 format images will have the equations right at their finger tips for generating the needed RGB palette from YPbPr numbers, without having to scour the internet like I did to find this web page. After all, it probably already took those people a while to find this Wikipedia article already, they shouldn't have to waste more time looking through another dozen resources to find the totality of the info they will need to write their software. It should all be right here in the Commodore 64 section of this computer color palette article on Wikipedia. Benhut1 (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't get is why you are doing it. The original values for 8bit computers are either RGB, YIQ (NTSC) or YUV (PAL), and are related to memory bits. Those are the only values that matter. YPbPr is just a conversion to a modern standard. Don't know where those values came from, doesn't make much sense. So better convert back to RGB, that's what computers and emulators use. Look at the reference for the C64 section ( http://www.pepto.de/projects/colorvic/ ) You have the relation of bits to YUV values. So that's what should be on the color tables, not that YCbCr nonsense. All else is original research. Non sourced values have no place here and I'll probably just remove them. We shoudn't be spreading false information. Added an original research warning to the article. 4throck (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

PiotrGrochowski000 is making odd grammatical errors, changing, for example

to

Does anyone else agree with this change? There are a total of three changes, most of which can be better (IMO) fixed by removing the parenthetical remark entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HighColor and TrueColor[edit]

As far as I can tell, the sentence referencing HighColor and TrueColor had been stable at

For current RGB display systems for 32-bit and better PCs (Super VGA, etc.), see the 16-bit RGB for HighColor (thousands of colors) and 24-bit RGB for TrueColor (millions of colors) modes.

for some time. I assume that's because, as noted in the respective articles, Apple called the modes "thousands of colors" and "millions of colors".

An editor (the same one as the one referenced in the preceding section) added counts (66 thousands of colors) and (17 millions of colors).

I added 216 and 224 instead of those counts, and the editor changed them to 2^16 and 2^24. I would like a third opinion as to what should be in the article. I tend to think the original version is best, without numbers. However, summarizing the problems,

  • As for the "small" counts (65, 17)
    • The counts probably shouldn't be there at all, as those are Apple's names for the display modes.
    • The counts "66" and "17" are misleading, as they are rounded up. They probably should be "64" (using the computer-science definition of "thousands" as 1024) or "65" (representing the fact that at least 65,000 colors are available) and "16" (for either reasoning) respectively.
  • As for the exact number.
    • They probably shouldn't be there at all, but I find them preferable to the other numbers.
    • The editor mentioned above has the idiotic view that 2^16 is the "modern notation" for 216. (I'm not saying the editor is an idiot, just that the view is idiotic. As noted in the section above, the editor has idiotic views of English punctuation, as well.)

Any thoughts?

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GX4000 and CPC+[edit]

I seem to recall the CPC+ range had additional colours available. Can anyone recall? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Apple II[edit]

The palette shown here is the color palette from the 40x48 pixel Lowres mode. The majority of Apple graphic applications used the Hires mode, which had 280×192 pixels (effectively 140x192 on a color monitor). This mode only allows six colors; black, white, blue, orange, green, and purple. So the Apple II section of this article is very lacking, and should be expanded because the wikipedia page for Apple II graphics links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:330A:D0D0:5DE7:1B58:17F0:7E7A (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why medium green color (no. 12) uses white text?

The medium green color (no. 12, with hexadecimal value of #1bcb01) uses white text, because the Y value in YPbPr is 0.5.

Why the color #1 (#722640) is named magenta, not red? --2403:6200:8837:6844:E5AB:FB9C:6CBB:48BB (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. TreeNamedUser (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of 8-bit computer hardware palettes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 October 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. If the nominator or another editor wants to request the move again with a better supported/explained nomination, feel free to. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics → List of 8-bit computer hardware palettes – Wrong name. It should be palettes, not graphics. After move, delete List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics, the redirect. User456541 (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm quite skeptical about this proposed move. First, the redirect should absolutely not be deleted even if the move proposal is approved. Second, I think more information needs to be provided as to why the current title is "wrong" – from what I see, the article does talk about color palettes, but it also seems to talk about color palettes in the context of graphics. So I think there needs to be more justification provided for this proposed move. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An unsupported/unexplained assertion is not justification for a move. --В²C ☎ 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why the YPbPr values in Commodore color palette rounded to three decimal places?[edit]

They are supposed to be 0.3125 for 0.313 (5 in fourth decimal place, from 5/16), and 0.46875 for 0.469 (7 in fourth decimal place, from 15/32). Why the YPbPr values show only three decimal digits due to the rounding into three decimal digits. Also, the Pb and Pr value in YPbPr are rounded, too, as 0.383 is come from 0.3828125 (8 in fourth decimal place, from 49/128), 0.707 is come from 0.70703125 (0 in fourth decimal place, from 181/256), and 0.924 is come from 0.923828125 (8 in fourth decimal place, from 473/512).

Also, it is supposed to use the rounding of YPbPr values within three decimal digits, and the YPbPr values are using binary fractions, obviously, they are used to being all binary fractions for these values.
Noticeably, there are sign bit for marking for negative numbers.

--2403:6200:8837:2083:94CA:664D:1B0:59AB (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How you can get the approximates of the YPbPr values in binary fractions?[edit]

You can get the YPbPr values in binary fractions (in Commodore color palettes), by following: --2403:6200:8837:D079:3946:4810:93DD:DFB8 (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multicolor mode High-res mode
Number — name Y Pb (rel.) Pr (rel.) Number — name Y Pb (rel.) Pr (rel.)
0 — black 0 0 0 8 — orange 0.5 −0.70703125 0.70703125
1 — white 1 0 0 9 — light orange 0.75 −0.70703125 0.70703125
2 — red 0.25 −0.3828125 0.923828125 10 — light red 0.5 −0.3838125 0.923828125
3 — cyan 0.75 0.3828125 −0.923828125 11 — light cyan* 1 0.3828125 −0.923828125
4 — purple 0.5 0.70703125 0.70703125 12 — light purple 0.75 0.70703125 0.70703125
5 — green 0.5 −0.70703125 −0.70703125 13 — light green 0.75 −0.70703125 −0.70703125
6 — blue 0.25 1 0 14 — light blue 0.5 1 0
7 — yellow 0.75 −1 0 15 — light yellow* 1 −1 0
Number — name Y Pb (rel.) Pr (rel.) Number — name Y Pb (rel.) Pr (rel.)
0 — black 0 0 0 8 — orange 0.375 −0.70703125 0.70703125
1 — white 1 0 0 9 — brown 0.25 −0.923828125 0.3828125
2 — red 0.3125 −0.3828125 0.923828125 10 — light red 0.5 −0.3828125 0.923828125
3 — cyan 0.625 0.3828125 −0.923828125 11 — dark grey 0.3125 0 0
4 — purple 0.375 0.70703125 0.70703125 12 — grey 0.46875 0 0
5 — green 0.5 −0.70703125 −0.70703125 13 — light green 0.75 −0.70703125 −0.70703125
6 — blue 0.25 1 0 14 — light blue 0.46875 1 0
7 — yellow 0.75 −1 0 15 — light grey 0.625 0 0

In Commodore 64 with more accuracy of Pb and Pr in YPbPr[edit]

Number — name Y Pb (rel.) Pr (rel.) Number — name Y Pb (rel.) Pr (rel.)
0 — black 0 0 0 8 — orange 0.375 −0.7071068 0.7071068
1 — white 1 0 0 9 — brown 0.25 −0.9238795 0.3826834
2 — red 0.3125 −0.3826834 0.9238795 10 — light red 0.5 −0.3826834 0.9238795
3 — cyan 0.625 0.3826834 −0.9238795 11 — dark grey 0.3125 0 0
4 — purple 0.375 0.7071068 0.7071068 12 — grey 0.46875 0 0
5 — green 0.5 −0.7071068 −0.7071068 13 — light green 0.75 −0.7071068 −0.7071068
6 — blue 0.25 1 0 14 — light blue 0.46875 1 0
7 — yellow 0.75 −1 0 15 — light grey 0.625 0 0
  • Note: Numbers with link blue-colored are going over three decimal digits.
Yep, It says for the Pb and Pr value in YPbPr is trigonometric sine in degrees from 0°, 22.5°, 45°, 67.5°, and 90° in order, not binary fractions. --2403:6200:8837:E964:401D:46C6:28D2:834F (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which CGA low cyan or high red is darker?[edit]

Which CGA low cyan or high red is darker?
Low cyan is purposed to be darker than high red, but the color contrast ratio is lower than high red. As color contrast ratio: low cyan is 2.86 and high red is 3.14. Please note the color low cyan is darker than high red due to the brightness and color difference, as low cyan is rated "MARGIN", where high red is rated "FAIL" while using white text, but "FAIL" and "MARGIN" while using black text for low cyan and high red by order. Obviously, low cyan (#3) is darker than high red (#12). --2403:6200:8937:2126:9176:255B:83B3:4D66 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the List of 8-bit computer hardware palettes by Nitrofurano archive?[edit]

Here you go: User:Nitrofurano/List of 8-bit computer hardware palettes --2403:6200:8937:4453:315B:A4B4:8BB4:98C (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Systems grouped by type of palette[edit]

Been reordering the article to group different systems by palette type (RGB, composite, number of bits, etc). I think this helps future expansion and perhaps the creation of specific articles for each palette type. 4throck (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted nonsense random edits[edit]

Had to revert dozens of nonsense edits by 78.70.38.73 They were random and/or only added repeated information.4throck (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC) More reversions. Makes no sense to describe each an every color variation, link to color names or simply add blank lines here and there. Mentioned this on the user's talk page, let's hope it ends. 4throck (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of 8-bit computer hardware graphics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

  • From Personal computer: Roy A. Allan, A Bibliography of the Personal Computer [electronic resource]: the Books and Periodical Articles, Allan Publishing – 2006, p. 73
  • From Cathode-ray tube: Fromm, Randy. "Sencore Blows Away CRT Failures With CR7000" (PDF). www.thegleam.com. Retrieved 2020-12-11.
  • From Thomson TO7: "TO7-70 Circuit Diagram". dcmoto.free.fr.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this one: "From Thomson TO7: "TO7-70 Circuit Diagram". dcmoto.free.fr." 16:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)~ 4throck (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense in Apple II section (and some others)[edit]

The Apple II colors given here are plainly wrong. By the late 1970s, NTSC TV sets and monitors had long dropped YIQ decoding in practice, they were using the simpler YUV decoding; even the FCC acknowledged that the NTSC 1953 standard, written in the infancy of color TV, was quite far from actual industry practice when they re-specified NTSC decoding in 1987 to use the SMPTE-C color space instead of the NTSC-1953 color space. YIQ is rotated by 12° from a 45° shifted YUV as used in the tables in this article, leading to wrong colors. Also, the factor between the relative U, V values (or I, Q values, that doesn't matter in this case) of the more and the less saturated colors is wrong, it should be square root of 2, not just 2. Thirdly, the colors given here are quite undersaturated, when real Apple II colors were on the contrary highly oversaturated. Calculating the Fourier series of the rectangular pulse signal shows that the absolute U,V values of all colors, except those which are 0, are ±√2/π, which is quite high especially for the blue-yellow axis. And fourth, they suffer from a fundamental error made on much of this page (as already discussed farther up on this page), assuming YUV to be the same as YPbPr when it is clearly not, since the U and V of YUV have to be scaled by two different factors to arrive at the Pb, Pr values of YPbPr. More information on this can be found on Talk:Apple II graphics near the current bottom; I corrected the colors in that article, which were already quite different from the (even more wrong) ones in this article here. 2003:C0:9715:9E00:1A07:7E20:B066:1ECB (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the hex values for Apple II colors my code generates, with their Apple Inc given names:
  1. 000000 black
  2. BF1A3D magenta
  3. 452DFF dark blue
  4. FE43FF purple
  5. 00813D dark green
  6. 808080 grey 1
  7. 369CFF medium blue
  8. C39EFF light blue
  9. 3E6A00 brown
  10. FC6E00 orange
  11. 808080 grey 2
  12. FF86C1 pink
  13. 3AEC00 light green
  14. C2EB00 yellow
  15. 57FFC0 aqua
  16. FFFFFF white
2003:C0:9715:9E00:1A07:7E20:B066:1ECB (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_8-bit_computer_hardware_graphics&oldid=1216760032"