Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> 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

That is a reasonable explanation.
The way I think this will work the whole image will be loaded into memory with
one single statement and then it's not really relevant anymore though. Besides,
it may be easier in low level programming environments but on most programming
platforms it doesn't really make much difference.
But I see your point.

Ciao!

Remco

Post a reply to this message