Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!esvax.berkeley.edu!bchen
From: bchen@esvax.berkeley.edu (Benjamin Chen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Question re. xwps (or xpr) and color displays
Message-ID: <31048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 31 Aug 89 22:28:49 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: bchen@esvax.berkeley.edu (Benjamin Chen)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 25

However, "xwps" dumps out 2 bytes for
each pixel, which produces rather large PostScript files.  "Xpr" produces
much smaller PostScript files, but I don't understand enough of what
it is doing to modify it suitably.

I originally wrote the X10 version, and since been "ported" (mangled,
acutally) by a friend of mine to X11.  The PostScript *image* facility
accepts values from 0 to 255, so only a byte is really necessary for
each pixel.  The X10 version does this precisely. Are you certain that
the X11 version insists on outputing a two-byte image?  I'm looking
at the source right now, and it looks like it takes only one byte of
info.  I guess you could mean that the two hex characters which describe
one byte is two-bytes, but I don't see another way around this.
    What might be a good optimization technique is to have an option
for using a scanline algorithm on "simple" windows, i.e. windows with
only a few shapes or lines drawn in them.  Oh well, I guess R4 will
have reasonable support for this, so the program may become somewhat
useless.

	BC

Benjamin Chen
Office:   550-A4 Cory Hall, 2-4332
UUCP:     !ucbvax!esvax!bchen               
HEPNET:   LBL::"bchen@esvax.Berkeley.EDU"