#IFF TO GIF CONVERSION
7 messages in this thread
Please take a look at DigiView IP files viewed at 640 x 400 x 256 colors
first.
(Dithering can make a difference).
Yes, dithering can make a difference. I maintain though, that dithering is
less to be desired than the full range of colours. I feel that GIF as
currently implemented, ignores a significant number of machines, one of which
I happen to be interested in. When they support my machine, I'll re-evaluate
my thoughts on it.
Regards, Larry.
I agree – dithering is a stop-gap process intended only to fill a void where
real color cannot be used for some reason – and it should never be forgotten
or ignored that dithering costs you resolution spatially, in return for the
colors it provides. –Ben–
Take a look at 256 color 640 x 400 Digiview stuff. I think you'll be
surprized.
A deep (24 bit) Pallette helps also…
Surprised I may be, but I still maintain that the current implementation of
GIF falls so far short of the Amiga (and other, even more colourful machines)
capability, that I have little use for it. To limit it to 156 colours shows
me that the authors were all to willing to cater to big blue and half eaten
fruit, while ignoring the rest of the industry. It's an attitude I don't like
much.
Regards, Larry.
Larry; 24 bits, what do you think? Shall we define a standard, here, now? 8r
8g 8b, *I* say. 32bit X and 32bit Y rectangular raster specifiers; Why?
Consider output on a huge plotter bed… or other high precision sources.
It's only a few bytes at the head of the file. I have _no_ idea why people do
things like limit the colors to 512, address spaces to 8 mb, (or 16k,
remember that?) And put in there run length, hamming, and mebbe two-three
other that are known to be highly effective on image data. MAke sure it can
be in biplane or word formats. What's the big deal, anyway? They must have
had intel people do the GIF spec, that's all *I* can think of. <smirk>
<running away>
–Ben–
Ben,
I'm in complete agreement with your seniments. (how's that for a change?)
One should always figure on what will show up in the next 5 years, double it
a few times, and define standards that will handle it, then define methods of
extending the standard. After all, we should have learned by now that all 10
year predictions that are at all 'in the right direction' turn out to be 3
year predictions.
Regards, Larry.