Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!think!snorkelwacker!apple!motcsd!motsj1!mcdchg!att!cbnewsd!knudsen
From: knudsen@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (michael.j.knudsen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: RAVE
Summary: Thanks for good answers; CLUT?
Message-ID: <12979@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 31 Jan 90 17:59:54 GMT
References: <YZgslrm00WB9A11IgR@andrew.cmu.edu> <12794@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> <1495@mcrware.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

Thanks to Tim Harris for excellent answers to my RAVE questions.
Looks like CD-I will be worth the wait -- if it comes in
expandable computer boxes.

I never heard of "CLUT" before, but it sounds like bits per pixel.
I can see that an 8-bit CLUT, one pixel per byte, would be the
easiest to program grafix algorithms for, tho heavy on memory.
(The coming KMA-68/Coco-4/CocoPro will have an 8-bit/pixel mode,
so could be easi to port RAVE to).

Naturally using 2 or 4 bits/pixel, meaning 4 or 2 pixles/byte,
is harder to deal with in drawing lines, shifting images, etc.
Have I interpreted CLUT correctly?
-- 
Mike Knudsen  knudsen@ihlpl.att.com   (708)-713-5134
"Round and round the while() loop goes;
        Whether it stops," Turing says, "no one knows."