home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.mac.hardware:26612 comp.graphics:14096
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!ucbvax!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
- From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.graphics
- Subject: Re: Why 32,768??
- Message-ID: <1381@taniwha.UUCP>
- Date: 18 Jan 93 21:25:44 GMT
- References: <freek.727207557@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> <1j9ph5INN322@gap.caltech.edu> <1ja2csINN6po@gap.caltech.edu>
- Organization: Taniwha Systems Design
- Lines: 36
-
- In article <1ja2csINN6po@gap.caltech.edu> madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes:
- >
- >Actually, the same analysis I did says that 8+9+7 is better than that.
- >And for 12 bits, 4+5+3 is better than 4+4+4. So why do they use equal
- >R, G, and B bits?
-
- I think two reasons: because the RAMDACS are 8+8+8 (even true-color systems
- these days use RAMDACS for gamma correction etc) - for a RAMDAC you need
-
- R G B
- 2 + 2 + 2 entries in your RAM tables
-
- If each entry is the same size as your index it's
-
- R G B
- R*2 + G*2 + B*2 bits
-
- For 8+8+8 it's 2048+2048+2048 = ~6k bits
-
- For 8+9+7 its 8*256+9*512+7*128 = ~7.5k bits
- (or a ~25% increase in die size and cost plus the size of
- the DAC goes up with the square of the index)
-
- Secondly on many cpus it's much cheaper to assemble bytes to make a 24-bit
- pixel than odd sized bits that require shifting and masking - I've seen a
- number of software digital video codec that run faster in 24-bit mode than
- 16-bit even though it seems that you shouldn't have to move as much data.
-
- Paul
-
-
- --
- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
- "Finally after much thought he tied a dollar bill to the top of the tree, it
- seemed to fit - after all it was the premier capitalist holiday, besides after
- the 'fall' of communism a star didn't seem appropriate anymore ..."
-