Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:11:48PM +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote:
> Even better would be:
>
> *dst-- = ((*src << 4) & 0xf0) + ((*src)& 0x0f);
> *dst-- = ((*src) & 0xf0) + ((*src-- >> 4) & 0x0f);
>
> Then 0 would map to 0 and 15 to 255, i.e. white is whi
--=-9Sk7ad9ml9n4//kI0oLg
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 02:32 -0400, Gregory C. Johnson wrote:
> BTW, pedantically speaking, shouldn't:
>=20
> *dst-- =3D (*src << 4) & 0xf0;
> *dst-- =3D (*src--) & 0xf0;
> rea
>Using lower bitdepth may still be faster than higher ones. So even if
>the size of the resulting image file is the same, lower depth may be
>useful if your scanner is faster with the lower depth.
True, though that's not the case here. (AFAIK, I've not time()ed the
scans, though I probably will so
