4 ms·
He's running code out of the region of memory that the CF card dumps the data from the disc to! Basically it's an entire 90 kilobyte program that draws the ani
by ddingus 6y ago
He's running code out of the region of memory that the CF card dumps the data from the disc to!
Basically it's an entire 90 kilobyte program that draws the animation! Edit: 90 Megabyte!
Something like this could have been possible back in the day, given a DMA capable i/o transfer device.
LDA #PIXELS
STA #SCREEN
.
.
.
- apricot 6y agoThe transcoder that he wrote to convert the source video to a 90 MB 6502 program that draws the animation is pretty nifty too: there's no time to update the whole screen between frames, so he diffs them and updates as many pixels as he can, starting with the ones that are most noticeable according to a perceptual distance metric. Details in this talk from two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM3deQAgMpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM3deQAgMpE
- ddingus 6y agoThanks for linking his other talk. The result is pretty great. I will enjoy the details.
- rangibaby 6y agoIt’s interesting to me that someone smart enough could have thought of this in 1981, but considered it impossible because 90MB was an absurdly large amount of data
- ddingus 6y agoAnd from what source material?
- Tabular-Iceberg 6y agoFilm and video certainly did exist in the 1980s.
- danparsonson 6y agoBut could anybody digitise it?
- ddingus 6y agoThis! Mechner pioneered doing that from VHS when doing his game Prince of Persia. Something like Bad Apple would be a heavy lift.
- retrac 6y agoThere are experiments with full motion digital video dating back to the 1970s. While computers certainly weren't fast enough to stream video data to or from memory (and you'd fill a supercomputer's entire RAM with 2 seconds of uncompressed video), video could be DAC'd in real time while streaming off digital tape, and vice versa. And such tape data could be read in, processed and written out by a computer (slowly...) Still, while technically possible to do this sort of video compression in 1981, it would have involved extremely specialized hardware to scan the film in the first place, and a good amount of compute time on a real big machine like the Cray-1 to do the compression. (And Rick Astley wasn't a star yet, so what would have been the point?) Fun fact though: just two years later, Cyndi Lauper's iconic music video was edited in digital form, including the insertion of computer-processed video effects: https://youtu.be/PIb6AZdTr-A?t=90 https://youtu.be/PIb6AZdTr-A?t=90 While such things as picture-in-picture are so common today we don't even notice it unless pointed out, that was mind-blowing at the time. But it took hardware worth a million dollars due to the megabytes of RAM required to fit the 10 second clips they worked with.
- ehaliewicz2 6y agoCompiling bitmap sprites into code like this was pretty common actually.