Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 06:13, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote: >> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > >>> +#define VIDEO_BPP 15 // saves memory >> >> This causes severe dithering artifacts. It's particularly >> visible on the colour buckets, which look look *really* bad >> now. > > Odd. Is your display actually in 16 bpp mode? 24. I use 32 in Windows, but it looks my driver only supports 24 in Linux (or it may just be the resolution-changer GUI that doesn't support 32). I have only tested this in Linux. > For me, the 16 bpp value was horrid, and the 15 bpp value is > indistinguishable from 24 or 32. For me, 15 bpp looks bad, 16 bpp looks OK, and 24 and 32 look great (and identical, which they of course should). >>> +//#define VIDEO_BPP 16 // causes purple discoloration >> >> And even white (!) aren't properly handled! > > This setting is severely defective. Try this: Fill the > screen with dark grey. Put a bunch of small light grey > spots packed closely together, so that you can blur them > to make a medium grey color. Now do that... and you see > a purple tint after a while. Oh, so *that's* why the blur tool malfunctions. I've experienced problems with it before, where it turns white and black to green. >> Is there any reason we can't use 32 bit mode? > > Pro: > > 1. accurate > 2. less bit shifting and alignment trouble > 3. can rip out some slow N-bpp to 32-bpp conversion code > > Con: > > 1. undo buffers take up 2x space > 2. less of the image will fit in the CPU's cache Well, then I think it's worth moving to 32/24 bit. Memory is cheap, and we really can't have a drawing program that doesn't handle colours properly, can we?! -- Karl Ove Hufthammer _______________________________________________ Tuxpaint-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tux4kids.net/mailman/listinfo/tuxpaint-dev
