On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Around 10 o'clock on Oct 23, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote: > > > > > I'd like to do this. > > I'd be interested in helping out.
I'll keep in touch with you. > > > Are we just going for 8bit pseudocolor on 24 bit directcolor, > > > or is it worth trying 5bit pseudo on 15/16 bit directcolour too ? > > > > I'm not sure 5-bit is interesting; many legacy apps assume 256 writable > > colormap entries or they'd work with a 5x5x5 cube preallocated by Render. > > What about 8bit pseudocolor on 16 or 24bit truecolor? For apps that involve > colormap cycling, the directcolor visual would definately be preferred, but > for other legacy apps that don't play with the colormap much once it's initially > allocated, it seems to me that you could use a truecolor visual and avoid > colormap flashing problems. Since we are required to be able to return the contains of the framebuffer, and (morally at least) we would have to implement colormap cycling, however slowly, to conform to the standard, a truecolor implementation probably has to be a shadow buffer, which would be unaccelerated. Many drivers actually use directcolor hardware to implement gamma mapping on truecolor, so I'm not sure that we would actually avoid colormap flashing problems. I've met resistance to a truecolor implementation from developers who understand this code better than I do, so I'd like to start with a DirectColor implementation, before adding an optional TrueColor implementation. -- Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
