On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:55:51 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> Here's my final test of PDF vs ZBM <g>
> (these are 200dpi instead of the 72dpi in my first conversion)
> http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
> western1_200dpi.zip 38216 bytes
> western2_200dpi.zip 51756 bytes
> (added together, they are still less than 50% the size of the original PDF)
Thanks, Glenn. Those even look like there was ink bleed on the paper. ;-)
I believe we have worn this one out. <G>
Steve said:
Multiple standards mean some viewers will not see some BMP formats,
for instance, the BMPs that Arachne can't see:
http://wizard.dyndns.org/997967481.zbm
Arachne can SEE it fine - but she won't show it because it's a 32bit BMP.
I changed the bits/pixel designation to 24 and then I could see something
- not correctly, of course, because Arachne wasn't skipping every 4th
useless byte. C'mon now. 24 bits/pixel is all that are going to get used.
Why pad the data file with an extra empty byte per pixel ?
I'm with Arachne on this.
BTW, if it's any consolation I made some 16 bit (Hicolor) BMPs with
Arachne and tested them in 8 bit mode. Arachne displays them but the
colors aren't properly reduced. They looked pretty poor.
Considering that I *STARTED* with a good-looking 256 color image the
reduction from 16 bit back to 8 sucks. :(
- Clarence Verge
- Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
