On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:16:33 -0300 individual <individual mi cl> wrote:
That's interesting. I was always under the imprsesion that we have left
24bpp displays far behind. Here's what my system says:
Resolution Video Memory
8MB
(SGRAM)
640 x 480 32-bit
800 x 600 32-bit
1024 x 768 32-bit
I _think_ that those 8 extra bits are for alpha blending (transparency).
Eek.... I was hoping for greater bit depth, but I'm getting more and more convinced that it's pointless to try and render a 48 bpp image at 48 bpp screen depth when screens are at most 24bpp deep.
It's not pointless. You won't lose much quality. Consider: on a 1024*768 monitor you can only display 786432 different colors (if every pixel has a different color, which is quite rare, unless you've got some very psychedelic images) To be able to display all the colors in an 24bpp gamut, you'll need 16777216 ((2^8)^3) pixels, which is something like 4729*3547 in traditional 4:3 ratio. If you come across a cheap display that can handle this, let me know. :-) Roland -- R.F. Smith /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign r s m i t h @ x s 4 a l l . n l \ / No HTML/RTF in email http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards
Attachment:
pgp8B690McJtY.pgp
Description: PGP signature