On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, L.D. Best wrote:
> Remember, you asked for it! Only 72K so could be worse ...
Thanks, L.D. Since we both have cable, even 50 times
that size would hardly be noticeable. ;-)
> >> It apparently meets PNG standards so that it can be converted to BMP,
> >> but the results are squished to the diagonal and totally unreadable.
Ok, now I see what you mean. You're right. In
Arachne, that's quite unintelligible.
> > That would seem to demonstrate a difference in the
> > output of
> > (DOS) PNG>BMP|[200]JPNG2BMP.EXE $1 $2 vs. that of
> > (Linux) PNG>BMP|convert $1 bmp24:$2
>
> > Would be so kind as to e-mail me the resulting *.BMP
> > file? I'd like to see how the file info differs.
The strange thing here is that xv displays it
perfectly, telling me that it's a Windows BMP
using 4-bit color, and "Got all 7 colors (6 unique),
while ImageMagick (also displaying it perfectly) says
it's a Microsoft Windows bitmap image using a color
depth of 8 bits, and a palette of 16 colors.
... so this must mean some flaw in the way Arachne
displays certain BMP file formats.
I wonder if Michael will be abandoning BMP format
when he changes to the cross-platform version.
- Steve
