Re: [Adonthell-artwork] Images saving format

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 13:51, Kai Sterker wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2002 13:08, you wrote:
> 
> > > The ideal for the programmer would be to only have one image class to
> > > deal with. As we support both 16 and 24 bpp depths, the easiest (and
> > > only "good" solution I can think of) would be to save our images in
> > > 16bpp depth. I don't think this will result in gfx quality degrading,
> > > because the images we use usually don't have that much colors. Also,
> > > looking at Waste's Edge running in 16bpp, there is nothing shocking -
> > > it's just as nice as in 24bpp. Moreover this would also make images
> > > taking less space and being better compressed.
> 
> Couldn't you make the editors to use 24bpp, no matter what the screen depth 
> is? That means SDL would have to do some converting while drawing the stuff, 
> but performance isn't an issue for the editors, I think.

It is. The map editor could still run in 16bpp as it doesn't need to
save image. It's not THE ideal solution to me, though, since you still
have the possibility to save in 16bpp.

> OTOH, if you could circumvent all problems cirrus has mentioned that would be 
> pretty good. The reduced size of 16bpp images sounds appealing. They'd still 
> be slightly bigger than they are now, but no longer by a factor of 4.

See my other mail about this. At worst, for the mask color, I can
manually test whether it's not exactly 255,0,255 and change it to a
color that won't be masked, but that's not really a big issue IMO. And
as you said the space saved will be quite consequent for images (as
16bpp by color should compress much better than 24)

> > Would it work to always store the gfx in memory as 24-bit and just
> > render them to the desired colour depth. I mean most PC users will
> > (should?) be using 24-bit or more, especially gamers. 
> 
> I don't. But then again, I'm not like anyone else ;).

Neither do I ;)

Alex.
-- 
http://www.gnurou.org