Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ingr!infonode!palmermg
From: palmermg@infonode.ingr.com (Michael G. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: 24/32 Bit Color
Message-ID: <1990Oct18.194838.1408@infonode.ingr.com>
Date: 18 Oct 90 19:48:38 GMT
References: <33786@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Lines: 23

In article <33786@nigel.ee.udel.edu> byrne@muppet.dnet.ge.com writes:
>
>I think I need some education.  I was under the (false?) assumption that the
>human eye could not distinguish 16 million colors (24 bit).  I assumed 24 bits
>was decided as number because it was an even multiple of a byte given the 3
>color components (RGB).  Since most displays don't have 16 million pixels, this
>gives you a great big palette.  But why 32 bit?  Is 32 bit color used because
>it is the word size of most of the popular high performance microprocessors
>(i.e 68020+)?  I don't see it buying you anything from a color stand point
>because who could distinguish adjacent colors from either 24 or 32 bit
>palettes?  Does it help in shading or is it just for data movement speed?
>Seems like overkill.  Thanks,
>
>                        -FB

I think that your idea about what they eye can see is ok.  But what can
one do with 32 bit color?  Well,  how about 3 bytes (24 bits) for color, and
the other 8 bits for tags, masks, overlay, VLT select, elevation data, or
whatever else might be useful.  ALL of the bits don't have to be color, or
even displayed, to be useful.

Michael Palmer, 
in no way speaking for Integraph Corporation