Remco de Korte wrote:
> 
> Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1) Make it 64x640. Tall, not wide. Then you have the benefit of having the
> > memory for the one frame structured almost as if it was an individual pic.
> > Makes it better for several other reasons also. Each frame can be
> > displayed/manipulated without having to know the total number of frames.
> > Etc, etc., etc. It also makes it much easier for me to write you a custom
> > concatenation program if you can't find anything else.
> 
> Could you please explain. I don't think I understand your reasoning here.
> 

The reasoning is that bitmaps are ordered in rows, not columns. When the
X by Y components are stacked vertically, each component is represented
by a single X by Y long byte stream. When they are stacked horisontally,
a component are sliced into Y separate pieces, each X bytes long. Not a
big problem, but why do it the harder way?

Margus

Post a reply to this message