Clear PAL50 is finally a reality
Baggers
Posts: 3,019
Hi All,
Full PAL50 finally achieved lol
Can't believe how simple it was after getting PAL60 sorted rofl.
Anyways, enjoy.
the archive is Parallax's graphics demo modified, oh so very slightly in tv.spin, and·I have demo/protoboard setup initially un-block-rem'd Hybrid is in there too,
I've not attached Hydra because the mouse driver is different, but it's easy enough to change.
Enjoy,
Baggers.
again, let me know if it works on all your PAL TV's ( which it should [noparse]:)[/noparse] )
Full PAL50 finally achieved lol
Can't believe how simple it was after getting PAL60 sorted rofl.
Anyways, enjoy.
the archive is Parallax's graphics demo modified, oh so very slightly in tv.spin, and·I have demo/protoboard setup initially un-block-rem'd Hybrid is in there too,
I've not attached Hydra because the mouse driver is different, but it's easy enough to change.
Enjoy,
Baggers.
again, let me know if it works on all your PAL TV's ( which it should [noparse]:)[/noparse] )
Comments
It works fine on all my PAL tv's (but you already knew that didn't you! lol)
Regards,
Coley
Cheers matey.
Jim.
Regards
Mike.
Yes that should be the right one, we have it working here nice and stable
What kind of output are you getting?
Apart from the color a main nuissance with PAL is the non-matching number of lines of PAL and of low cost screens, which yields noticeable inferiour results by the skipping of each 5th line. This is most likely different with full blown TV sets, but those are not my output targets
I have some small LCD monitors (5 & 7 Inches) at work, I will try them tomorrow and post the results.
Regards,
Coley
Thanks again,
Baggers.
Just my thoughts, certainly don't wish to take away work already done.
Regards
Mike.
I would agree with that Mike, we aren't trying to do the defacto standard PAL display just to make it usable on as many displays as we can.
We must remember that the Propeller is only a microcontroller, a very capable one I admit, but, video generation isn't it's primary function.
I really think this has got a long way to go before we are all 100% happy, me included...
It's very helpful having someone like yourself available to test things on a professional level though!
One thing is for sure, if we keep working on it bit by bit, we will get there in the end!
Regards,
Coley
I see the change was to change lpal to the nearest multiple of 16. Which the comment implies it should have been anyway.
There's still room for improvement in that single horizontal pixels aren't even, and so display colour artifacts. You can see this on the blue lines that are nearly vertical. Different sections are different shared of blue. I found this when playing with my own TV driver, and the solution is to make hx=16 rather than 10. (To compensate you also have to reduce x_tiles from 16 to 10, or it'll be too wide to display)
The resultant hack is a rather lopsided display because something isn't calculating the borders correctly, but consistently coloured single pixels. The pixels are wider than in your demo, and thus the max horizontal resolution will be lower. But still higher than an equally correct NTSC display.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Help to build the Propeller wiki - propeller.wikispaces.com
Play Defender - Propeller version of the classic game
Prop Room Robotics - my web store for Roomba spare parts in the UK
the screen but no noted strobing, same solid quality as for the PAL60 graphics demo.
PAL50 TV_Text would be the real test for me. PAL60 TV_Text had atrocious strobing.
Regards
Mike.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
Also, this was one of the reasons we cancelled SKY because of their horrific attempt to squeeze as many channels as possible, into their bandwidth, to the point that most of the channels are appalling to watch as the picture quality due to their heavy use of overcompression made watching anything and enjoying it totally impossible. [noparse]:([/noparse] so yeah, I know when something is just plain wrong too, but with what we're given, it's just about the best it's gonna get, without extra hardware.
LOL Simon, This driver is better than the original Parallax TV.spin, because I've just fixed what must have been a slight oversight in their data entry, not forgetting they probably didn't have a PAL tv to test it with. maybe who knows, either way, it's about as good as it'll get, comparable to the stability of it's NTSC output.
You're wanting a good PAL reference signal - something the Propeller is never going to give. The rest of us just want a clearer, higher resolution display on our TVs than was previously available. That it works on PAL TVs is the important thing, not whether the waveform complies to the spec. Of course given the choice it'd be nice to be absolutely on spec, but if you're playing a game, or using a propeller console, or whatever, the only thing that matters is how good the image appears, not how close to the spec it is.
If you're wanting us to agree with you that the propeller will never produce a perfectly PAL image, you've got it. We already know that.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Help to build the Propeller wiki - propeller.wikispaces.com
Play Defender - Propeller version of the classic game
Prop Room Robotics - my web store for Roomba spare parts in the UK
especially since the retro consoles also were never "perfect" and some even had dot crawl [noparse]:)[/noparse]
M.
They've definitely improved the image quality on the standard TV driver for PAL. That's a good thing. In fact a very good thing as the standard driver was awful for PAL.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Help to build the Propeller wiki - propeller.wikispaces.com
Play Defender - Propeller version of the classic game
Prop Room Robotics - my web store for Roomba spare parts in the UK
This project still has a long way to go, we want to develop the driver to get the best possible picture, PAL or NTSC out of this great little chip.
That means we need feedback, be it good, bad or indifferent, it all helps to nudge us along the way.
Our driving force for this, is that we want to produce a commercial product and the PAL output at the moment isn't quite there - yet!
It will be, given a bit of time, effort and plenty of testing and feedback!
I now know that if I can get Mike happy with the output then it is commercially viable!
Coley
John
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'
Enthusiasm++
lol
"PAL" ?
That answer can only definitively come from a measure of the video signal set against what
"the PAL specification" ( whatever/wherever that is ) states makes for PAL compatibility and
compliance.
A less rigorous answer comes from looking at it another way - If a PAL compliant TV does
not correctly display non-PAL ( shows NTSC as noise or nothing, rolls on PAL60, isn't near
rock-steady on-screen, has lines missing or things which should be there are not ) then what
it is receiving is "not PAL". Conversely, if it does work it can colloquially be called PAL or be
said to be in the right ballpark. IMO, quality of rendered image is a different issue, even if
quality is a part of the official PAL specification ( I don't know ).
On that front, I'm pleased to report that my Citizen handheld LCD TV, which didn't work with
NTSC nor PAL60 does work with the driver here, showing what I'd expect.
I'd therefore call both the Parallax 'PAL Driver' and what this driver gives "PAL", with this driver
having the edge in quality of result.
I'd therefore say either driver could be 'sold' as "PAL". Whether acceptable quality PAL to meet
a customer's statisfaction and expectations being a separate issue. For a customer who cared
more than whether something displayed on his PAL screen, I would say the Parallax driver may
not meet customer expectations whereas this driver is more likely to. But this is a very subjective
matter. I'd certainly be more happier with "PAL output" on the advertising flyer with this driver.
I'd still like to see the equivalent TV_Text to see how that fares, but appreciate there are other
things in people's lives and I'm not the sole concern.
Perhaps the best way of putting it, in my words, is, "this driver delivers something which most PAL
using end-users would have very little, if anything, to whinge about".
@Baggers... Yeah I should have tried to Copyright the phrase "Plain Wrong" I've let this one fly.
I would be very intrerested to hear more from the designers of this Micro about the NTSC/PAL issues. I'm pleased that they are coming to the surface. I don't wish to turn this in to an all out fight between UK/Euro users of this device. Let no one be surprised
however when the Propeller does not see a big market share within the UK. Everything else is there. I'm personally not interested if it's for a retro gaming market, or as a more general device. If it tells me within the specs that the device does PAL video ouput
I'd like PAL video output (Not to some bizzare standard however), I don't want to jump through hoops to get almost there. Perhaps the Propeller II should almost do "NTSC" with weeks and months of messing around. Please Parallax see this is an issue to your European and other customers. Dot crawl.... dot crawl who on earth is shouting that
is 99% there.
Regards
Mike.
.. Mike - I don't believe this to be entirely true -'EDIT: The more I think of it - it is simply·NOT the case.'·I for one have used the Propeller in various applications - and I firmly believe that this will not adversely affect the euro/uk market ... put simply the Propeller has a lot more to it than just Pal (albeit Quasi Pal) .. There have been a number of posts where frequencies were tweaked to get a 'satisfactory' pal image.
This IC Punches well above its weight in terms of most other uControllers ...and it has a more helpful and active forum than any other uController manufacturer .. which IMO adds to it's appeal.
You say if it says PAL then you expect PAL .. nothing less !! Similarly Look at the manufacturers of most USB to RS232(serial) converters .. they do not even come close to RS232 standards .. not just in terms of voltage ! But yet they work (at least the majority of them do)..
Lets not look at this as a failure ...
Rgds,
John Twomey
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
'Necessity is the mother of invention'
Post Edited (QuattroRS4) : 1/14/2008 10:02:46 AM GMT
I agree is a feature. Me very unlikely to have my multimeter sat on a couple of pins measuring some voltage that might or might not be important to me. Anything Video output is visual (yeah me also surprised I wrote this) You see the defects (or features) very clearly. I would certainly expect a device to conform to a known (ish) standard.
With
Regards
Mike.