mparrish11
Nov 28 2003, 03:38 AM
What kind of computer was used for the tiles/etc.....
Kind of looks like an Amiga
chris319
Nov 28 2003, 05:37 PM
Two PCs and a still-store device were used. One PC displayed the numbers. When a number was opened it revealed the second PC underneath which displayed the prizes. When a panel was opened on the second PC it revealed a colored rectangle into which was chroma-keyed the still store containing the puzzle.
Mike Tennant
Dec 1 2003, 10:02 AM
| QUOTE (chris319 @ Nov 28 2003, 05:37 PM) |
| Two PCs and a still-store device were used. One PC displayed the numbers. When a number was opened it revealed the second PC underneath which displayed the prizes. When a panel was opened on the second PC it revealed a colored rectangle into which was chroma-keyed the still store containing the puzzle. |
And yet they were able to make home versions at the time that ran on a single computer? This just seems like overkill for a relatively simple game. I can understand, for graphics quality, having the chroma-key shot of the puzzle since a PC at the time couldn't have displayed it as well. It seems hard to understand the need for separate PCs for the numbers and prizes, however. If my little Commodore 64 could handle all three layers at once, why couldn't a PC at the time handle two?
clemon79
Dec 1 2003, 12:34 PM
| QUOTE (Mike Tennant @ Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM) |
| If my little Commodore 64 could handle all three layers at once, why couldn't a PC at the time handle two? |
Note that the animation and graphics on your little Commodore 64 weren't even remotely close to broadcast quality.
Frankly I'm surprised, what with Video Toasters and what not, that the board wasn't run from Commodore Amigas.
Mike Tennant
Dec 1 2003, 01:14 PM
| QUOTE (clemon79 @ Dec 1 2003, 12:34 PM) |
| QUOTE (Mike Tennant @ Dec 1 2003, 08:02 AM) | | If my little Commodore 64 could handle all three layers at once, why couldn't a PC at the time handle two? |
Note that the animation and graphics on your little Commodore 64 weren't even remotely close to broadcast quality.
|
I'm well aware of that, but I figured that the high-end PC that Goodson and NBC surely would have purchased would be able to handle two layers and still perform admirably in both the graphics and animation departments. The graphics weren't too complicated on either layer. I'm not arguing with the fact that it was done this way; I'm just somewhat surprised that they found it necessary to use two PCs to do the job that my one little computer could do.
| QUOTE |
| Frankly I'm surprised, what with Video Toasters and what not, that the board wasn't run from Commodore Amigas. |
That is surprising. It also seems possible that, had it been done that way, one Amiga would have sufficed. Amigas were pretty nifty computers which, unfortunately, never caught on with the general public, which was the case with most Commodore stuff after the C64. I finally gave in to the PC behemoth and junked my Amiga in 1996.
chris319
Dec 1 2003, 08:05 PM
At the time the Video Toaster was not a finished product and the Amiga's video output was never fully broadcast quality, mainly because the display didn't cover the entire width of the screen. The setup used on CC involved Targa graphics cards and their RGB outputs were externally encoded to NTSC using Faroujda encoders and then somehow genlocked. In addition, a custom-built control panel was attached to these computers to control the whole affair. I also seem to recall that hard drives for the Amiga in those days were not quite commonplace.
Playing a home game, if the computer hiccups it's "Oh, well." In a live network television production environment where downtime costs by the minute, you need a more "industrial strength" solution than plastic-cased Amigas. They say that nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, and when you have a $20,000 budget, why go with a $500 consumer-grade computer?
As for using two PCs, I don't know. Corey Cooper could tell you why.
Jimmy Owen
Dec 1 2003, 08:32 PM
Painting the puzzles on plywood and sawing them into 25 pieces sounds a lot easier.
clemon79
Dec 1 2003, 10:13 PM
| QUOTE (Jimmy Owen @ Dec 1 2003, 06:32 PM) |
| Painting the puzzles on plywood and sawing them into 25 pieces sounds a lot easier. |
I'm sure that part was. Fixing the mechanical board when it broke down, instead of a simple reboot, prolly wasn't so much.
Clay Zambo
Dec 1 2003, 11:50 PM
| QUOTE (chris319 @ Dec 1 2003, 08:05 PM) |
| The setup used on CC involved Targa graphics cards and their RGB outputs were externally encoded to NTSC using Faroujda encoders and then somehow genlocked. |
Gotta love the tech talk.
Weren't the Faroujda encoders located in Jeffreys tube #9? ;)
clemon79
Dec 2 2003, 01:45 AM
| QUOTE (Clay Zambo @ Dec 1 2003, 09:50 PM) |
| QUOTE (chris319 @ Dec 1 2003, 08:05 PM) | | The setup used on CC involved Targa graphics cards and their RGB outputs were externally encoded to NTSC using Faroujda encoders and then somehow genlocked. |
Gotta love the tech talk.
Weren't the Faroujda encoders located in Jeffreys tube #9? ;)
|
I dunno, but I suggest that if you are going to check, the least you can do is buy Jeffrey dinner and a movie first. ;)
uncamark
Dec 2 2003, 08:17 PM
| QUOTE (clemon79 @ Dec 1 2003, 10:13 PM) |
| QUOTE (Jimmy Owen @ Dec 1 2003, 06:32 PM) | | Painting the puzzles on plywood and sawing them into 25 pieces sounds a lot easier. |
I'm sure that part was. Fixing the mechanical board when it broke down, instead of a simple reboot, prolly wasn't so much.
|
Not to mention the potential cost of rebuilding the old mechanical game board, considering that the old boards had no doubt turned into scrap metal and spare parts years before after 20 years of service on both the network and syndie versions. If it had just been stagehands pushing trilons behind the board, it may've been feasible to rebuild. But computer-generated graphics were infinitely more economical to construct than a brand-new mechanical monster of a game board.
chris319
Dec 2 2003, 10:41 PM
| QUOTE |
| computer-generated graphics were infinitely more economical to construct than a brand-new mechanical monster of a game board. |
Not infinitely more; a lot of programming and hardware went into that project. Infinitely less labor intensive to operate, that's for sure. You also didn't have to saw the 6th row of trilons off the old board.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.