On Sun, Mar 09, 2003, Laurens M. Fridael wrote: > Images this wide will lead to gigantic PDBs, so in practice you > won't even go near this limit.
The difference between Adam's suggestion (based on what he wrote; I haven't seen the code, yet) and my suggestion is not only about the image size, but also about the memory it uses to display the images. Let's say we actually have an image with a width of 30k pixels and e.g. a height of just 100 pixels. To display that image we would have to work with 100 1x30k images at the same time. Now, I haven't seen Adam's code, yet, but I would be surprised if it could handle such a (I admit, exotic:) case... If you split the image in both directions you would be able to display the same large image while using a much smaller amount of memory (hopefully, if my theory works in practice, only the same 60k we use today.) I know from past experience that Adam has a different view than me when it comes to the viewer's memory use; IMO, we should use as little memory as possible to be able to support also older devices and not only the latest and greatest ;-) /Mike _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
