Newsgroups: comp.graphics Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!elf From: elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) Subject: Re: the word "bitmap" Message-ID: <8901042308.AA12896@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI References: <8568@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <7549@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 18:08:18 EST In my paper on the semantics of bit-mapped graphics (and other topics) (computers&graphics 11, 2 (Apr. 1987)), I define bit-maps as Paul Heckbert suggests, but just because I define something to be so doesn't make it so. Both Foley and van Dam, and Newman and Sproull are fairly cagey about bit-mapping. It's hard to get a straight answer as to whether or not they intend bit-maps to be bi-level, since they are discussed in the context of general raster graphics. The point is that if the standard texts don't define such concepts carefully, ambiguity is bound to spread. Example: The index entry for bit-mapped graphics in Foley and van Dam reads Bit map, see Raster display, refresh buffer and the index entry for refresh buffer is oblivious to bit-maps. Now, if you chase down the page references for "refresh buffer", you will see that p21 refers to bit-maps, and does not say that the colour space must be bi-level. In fact, in subsequent references, it becomes clear that pixels within bit-maps do not need to be bi-level. But then they define boolean operations on bit-maps, which only make (proper) sense when pixels are bi-level. (Yes, yes, I know that one can try to make sense of some "boolean" operations on n-bit pixels, n>1.) It is clear that a word is needed for bi-level intensity functions f: Z sup 2 -> {0,1} in which there is a one-one correspondence between f and an image capable of displaying bi-level pixels. For me, that word is bit-map. Note that I have distinguished between bit-maps and images (e.g., for me a bit-map does not have a pixel aspect ratio or shape-- images do). -- Eugene Fiume Dynamic Graphics Project University of Toronto elf@dgp.toronto.edu