Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******
Michael Wulff Nielsen wrote:
> > You don't *need* to compress these files... You could use an uncomressed
> > image, which would just have two planes, and would be represented
> > directly in binry.
>
> No, but look at that 30k piccy of sandra bullock. Compression is needed
> until 4meg TI-92s are the norm of the day. 30k for a 3color raw picture
> that is absurd. By the way i will release a library for fargo that will
> decompress pictures. Included will be a little program to compress TI92
> vars. The routine should be fast and efficient.
>
I agree that someone should come up with a better compression scheme for
the PC, but wanted to point out that this obsession with it having to be
"powerpacked" is rediculious. Someone that wanted to make a program now
with greyscale should not worry about compression if they don't know how
to do it, and just release an update when a compression lib/program
package like yours comes out.
Also, you should make your library able to handle scrolling, or files
larger than the screen, since I heard that that was why bullock was not
compressed.
--
Christopher Poole
poole.christopher@paradox.net
http://www.paradox.net/homepages/poole
http://mycorner.home.ml.org
http://poole.home.ml.org
Follow-Ups:
References: