Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!arisia!roo!janssen From: janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: standard pixmap format for R5 Message-ID: Date: 8 Aug 90 23:11:57 GMT References: <9008031915.AA24235@sae.com> <990005@hpnmdla.HP.COM> Sender: news@parc.xerox.com Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 21 In-reply-to: roger@hpnmdla.HP.COM's message of 7 Aug 90 06:07:01 GMT In article <990005@hpnmdla.HP.COM> roger@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Roger Petersen) writes: By the way, don't you want/need a format that has a convenient ASCII representation (ala bitmap format)? Why? One of the problems with "bitmap" format is that it is incredibly bulky. Pixmap format with 8 or 24 bits per pixel would swell up even more. The XPM format suggested by Bull is still bulky, but reasonable for pictures with less than 257 colors in them, but I think it would fail after that (or at least I don't remember how it handled fatter pixels). But I tend to use Sun rasterfile in run-length encoded mode for pixmaps. It has reasonable compression, and is easy to read and write, despite being a binary format. Bill -- Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304