Ewan Borland wrote:
> 3.I hadn't really thought about the compression of the images but I've fully > decompressed most of them now to check the size and they just about doubled. > But that's still only about 400K per model - not enought to justify the > extra memory surely? I would suspect 'full decompression'. Do you mean jpeg with quality set to 100 ? If yes, then it is not a 'decompression'. It depends on the image, but 400K of jpeg-even-with-100-quality is a LOT. Just checked, 1600x1000 image (noise function, so not very complicated, but full RGB) compresses to 224k. So I would suspect 400kb jpeg to be around 1600x1600. In true color it would take about 10MB after decompressing. Java/Java3d in some cases likes to keep 4 versions of texture, at least for some time... Please tell us, how big are your textures in pixels and color depth, not how much they take on disk. Then we will be able to help you. If 400kb figure is for real usage (which would mean for example truecolor 320x320 pixels image), then please ignore my post. Artur =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
