home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!homer.cs.mcgill.ca!jerry
- From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald Jerry KUCH)
- Subject: Re: Chunky Pixels vs. Bitplanes (was: Chunky Chip Set...)
- Message-ID: <C0rpII.Dz7@cs.mcgill.ca>
- Sender: news@cs.mcgill.ca (Netnews Administrator)
- Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada
- References: <doiron.0kil@starpt.UUCP> <10408@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> <1993Jan12.112405.14424@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:01:29 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1993Jan12.112405.14424@doug.cae.wisc.edu> pochanay@cae.wisc.edu (Adisak Pochanayon) writes:
- > Chunky Pixels are much more efficient than Bitplanes. Consider setting
- >a 8-bit color-depth pixel.
- >
- > With Chunky pixels you simply make one memory access. That is, writing the
- >color to the pixel address.
- >
- > With Bitplanes, you must make 16 memory access. For each bitplane, you must
- >read a byte, set or clear the appropriate pixel-bit, and then write back the
- >byte.
- >
- > 1:16 memory access to slow chip mem??? I think that Chunky wins.
- >Not to mention that chunky pixel calculations take less time to find the
- >pixel address.
- >
-
- Thank you for your manifold, profound insights. This was the first point
- brought up in this thread, which has been going on for about three weeks
- now. There are pros and cons to both sides.
-
- But Thus Sprach Pochanay... so shall it be.
-
-
- --
- Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) | NEED A NEW QUOTE
- "I was wrong to play God. Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
- Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
- --- M. Burns "Treehouse of Horror II"
-