[CF List] png images
Norbert Irmer
norbert.irmer at heim9.tu-clausthal.de
Thu Jul 6 19:16:25 CDT 2000
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
More information about the crossfire
mailing list