Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Subject: Re: Colorburst and Animation Message-ID: <979@cbmger.UUCP> Date: 19 Mar 91 16:55:48 GMT References: <13948@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar15.193235.2926@cs.mcgill.ca> Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany Lines: 23 In article <1991Mar15.193235.2926@cs.mcgill.ca> tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE) writes: > > Is it really necessary to use all 24 bits? > From quick calculation, 18 bits are more than enough to > display 640x400 screen with every pixel having different > colors. So why not have 24 bit palettes and use 18 bits > or less for the lower resolutions? Indeed, 24-bit palettes were nice to have, BUT: Do you know one existing chip that can hold that palette data (or color lookup table)? Remember, you want 2^24 entries in your palette with 18 bits each, this is, well, let's calculate, 48 Megabytes. Umpf, a little much for a CLUT chip, or what? (I love such speculations:) And the reason to use palettes is to have such nice effects like color cycling easily available. Now a Copper or someone would have to cycle 16 million palette entries at maximum. Let me guess that this color cycle would not turn out as the fastest one on earth :-) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk