home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
- Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!wang!news
- From: izeek@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ilan Aisic)
- Subject: Re: XPutPixel and and XGetPixel and image layout
- Reply-To: izeek@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ilan Aisic)
- Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:47:04 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.164704.4951@discus.technion.ac.il>
- References: <VICTOR.92Aug31135453@terse4.watson.ibm.com>
- Sender: news@wang.com
- Lines: 35
-
- In article <VICTOR.92Aug31135453@terse4.watson.ibm.com> victor@watson.ibm.com writes:
- >I know that the standard "safe" way of writing and reading pixels in
- >an image is to use XPutPixel and XGetPixel. However, for speed one
- >would like to read and write units (bytes, double bytes, quad bytes
- >and whatever) directly for speed. Is there a reliable way of
- >determining what the layout of the image is? I realize that,
- >theoretically, it doesn't need to be layed out by scan lines, with
- >possible padding, in which case all bets are off. Is there a good way
- >of determining whether or not this is the case (via some X calls), and
- >if the image is layed out in a "standard" way to determine to
- >parameters: a) how much space a pixel takes up, b) is there padding at
- >the end of a scan line, and anything else that might be relevant.
- >
- >--
- > Victor S. Miller
- > Bitnet: VICTOR at WATSON
- > Internet: victor@watson.ibm.com
- > IBM, TJ Watson Research Center
- > "Great artists steal; lesser artists borrow" Igor Stravinsky
-
-
- Well, why don't you use XGetImage, manipulate the whole rectangular,
- and then call XPutImage to lay it back on the drawable?
-
-
- ____
- / / __
- / / /_/ /| /
- __/_ /__ / / / |/ o o o
-
- Ilan Aisic
- Israel USA
- Voice: 972-4-344474 1-914-644-7710
- Fax: 972-4-342492 1-914-644-7763
- E-mail: izeek@techunix.technion.ac.il ilan@allink.com
-