Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu!etaylor
From: etaylor@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re:  Can some one help me with Image package
Message-ID: <2384@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 14:00:07 GMT
References: <9010221734.AA18340@armory>
Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu
Reply-To: etaylor@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Eric Taylor)
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <9010221734.AA18340@armory>, jimf@SABER.COM writes:
|> |The XPutPixel is not too bad to use as it is very smart about 8 and 1 bit
|> |images.  [...]  We have found the that slowness is tolerable knowing that
|> |an application will always work with any depth and bit-byte ordering.
|> 
|> If you're trying to be interactive it's *not* tolerable.  I get around
|> this by defining my own image format and slamming it into the XImage
|> structure.  The code that transforms into server-native format is much
|> more efficient than the PutPixel/GetPixel code so there's a big jump
|> in throughput.
|> 
|> jim frost
|> saber software
|> jimf@saber.com

Yes we did this originally, too, but found that some servers do *NOT* accept
any old format that you stuff into an XImage structure.  Does an X server 
have to accept any XImage structure (but do it slowly if it does not match
the hardware format)?
-- 
					Eric Taylor
					Baylor College of Medicine
					etaylor@wilkins.bmc.tmc.edu
					(713) 798-3776