Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!uplherc!wicat!sarek!gsarff
From: gsarff@sarek.UUCP (Gary Sarff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: HAM-E not IFF??
Message-ID: <00363@sarek.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 90 13:39:15 GMT
Organization: Programmers in Exile
Lines: 18

Several people here have made the statement that the BlackBelt video unit's
REG and HAM-E modes are not IFF or violate IFF or some such and are therefore
bad.

In what way does a HAM-E picture not adhere to IFF?  The "magic cookie" is a
series of specific pixel values, _BUT_ it is in the _BODY_ hunk of the IFF
file that this will appear.  Also, the color registers that the new modes use
are in subsequent scan lines of the _BODY_.  This has nothing to do with any
of the other hunks in the IFF file which determine viewmodes, pagesize, etc.
Are you people saying that certain pixel combinations in a body are illegal?
This sounds like nonsense to me, since any properly functioning IFF parser is
going to be able to parse these new HAM-E pictures just fine and if it
attempts to display them on the amiga screen, using the information in the
IFF header hunks, it will display as HAM-E.  IFF parsers don't look inside
the body hunk to see what pixels are there anyway, so how is this not
conforming to "standard IFF"??
Comments from BlackBelt welcome too.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I Am The Reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln", Claims Jim Bakker.
   --An Enquirer Exclusive
Iranian Brain Boffs produce Crazed Mutant Telekinetic Kitten Girl
   --See story inside
Only in America!