Frank McKenney wrote: > Every freedom brings its own set of restrictions (;-). > > I worked with a local graphics company a few years back when reasonably- > priced 8-bit color was a relatively new thing: I contributed some > technical expertise, and they knew "what looked good". It was a > definite "learning experience" (;-). > > If one's normal working environment is "lotsa colors" (e.g. 24-bit, > 8:8:8 color) it can be extremely difficult to create _good_ 256 color or > 3:3:2 color images. It's all to easy to create a stunning 8:8:8 color > image whose impact turns around the use of subtle shadings; when these > are converted ("butchered") to fit a palette (or the fixed palette of > 3:3:2 color) those shadings are often lost. What was an amazing 8:8:8 > red robe becomes a blob with perhaps two shades of red. > > For what you're suggesting, you'd have to view your images in both > modes, then go back and tweak the high-color images, and repeat this > process until _both_ sets looked good. The graphics people usually > found it was a lot less work to create their images in 256-color or > 3:3:2 color mode to start with. > Hi, I was thinking at the future. In a few years nobody will use 8 bit displays anymore. So why spend much time on creating fine-tuned images for 8-bit color palettes - since these images, as good as they may be, could look even better on 24 bit displays when done in 8:8:8. Don't misunderstand me, I like the current xpm graphics very much, and i didn't meant to offend someone. But i think, if there must be new graphics, then better in 8:8:8 right from the beginning. Or at least, the original high color graphics should be kept somewhere in the CVS archive, when they are reduced to 8 bit. Norbert