On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:58:54 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
>> The colors are different because your box and Glenn's are set
>> differently. You see what Glenn saw in that .ZBM. What did the
>> author intend ? Re: the definition, the same argument. <g>
> Or are the colors different because of inherent
> limitations in the BMP file format? Or perhaps the
> color depth of the capture utilities.
There are no limitations to .BMP format that I am aware of. At least
no limitations that aren't also inherent to any print format. That is,
once you commit your file (.JPG,.GIF,.PNG,.TIF - whatever), to paper
or screen there is no way to return to EXACTLY the original. You only
have the pixels/dots now, not their higher level map names. (Letters)
So, in a sense I agree that .BMP limits how you can later manipulate
or print the page, because once you shoot it you have set the final
resolution.
> Why is it that
> there seem to be so many incompatible BMP formats
> floating around? It's almost as bad as TIFF!
Not hardly. <g> I also don't know about incompatible BMP formats -
unless you mean the incompatability of a 1024x768 .BMP with a fixed
640x480 display. BMPs are just video memory dumps.
> (Have you ever tried looking at a patent drawing from
> the US Patent Office website? What a nightmare!)
I agree 100%. And in this case I would much prefer a compressed .BMP.
> As to what the author intended, I'm sure he intended
> the land mass to show as pale yellow, since that's what
> I see in both Acroread 4 and xpdf 0.91
What color you see has as much to do with your video display mode and
drivers as what the author intended, and nothing to do with Acroread.
If the author was dumb enough to specify a 24bit color, there is a very
high likelyhood that almost no one will see the color specified.
Certainly not in Arachne if the spec. is something like #DCDC93.
Hicolor is only physically capable of showing 32768 of the 16.7 million
24bit possibilities.
If you are using a windows 24bit video driver and shoot a .BMP of THAT
screen, the info WILL be in the file. It will only be an approximation
if you shoot in 15 or 8 bit color modes.
But who has generated the problem here ? Is a 24 bit specific color
reasonable for a document that isn't a photograph ? Is it important ?
>> File formats DO have trade-offs, and although ZBM may not do any
>> more than let you see what the author WANTS you to see,
> Huh? Is this what the author wants you to see?
> http://wizard.dyndns.org/bmp.png
> (2k - cropped screenshot)
I really can't say - I can't see the original .pdf (I refuse to use
the Acrobat reader - needs Windows) - what percentage of the screen
width was that ? If it had been printed on an 8.5" page would you
need a magnifying glass ? Maybe it would be better if it was shot
from a 1024x768 screen ?
>> PDF is a
>> very poor trade. If HTML wasn't designed to move around the screen
>> when you send it to someone with a different display size, it would
>> - in combination with .gifs or .zbms - make a much better solution.
> An international patent consortium has decided that
> TIFF is detailed, suitable for printing out, and
> accessible. (try getting a TIFF from the US Patent
> and let me know how "accessible" it is!
We are in full agreement on both .TIFs and the US pat office. ;-)
And "accessability". I guess they all use Macs.
>> I'm not pushing .ZBMs. I just hate .PDFs and would like to see ANY
>> substitute. <G>
> I'm not pushing .PDFs either. I just don't like
> Microsoft Windows Bitmap images, and would just like to
> see each format used where it belongs. PDFs for
> documents which need to be printed out a specific way
> and BMPs on Windoze.
This last paragraph is my main reason for answering your post.
BMPs were around long before Windows was invented. They are no more a
M$ proprietary format than my .DOCs were created by M$ Word. (NOT!!)
Those b@#$%^ds think they can lay claim to the entire known universe
just by sticking their flags in the landscape wherever they like. :(
- Clarence Verge
- Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
