Re: [Fractdev] Xfractint and .tga files
Hi Guys, Is there a reason why we stay with targa? Surely it would be better to move to a more modern lossless true colour format such as PNG. This gives us compression and is viewable by a much larger range of applications. I have gone this way with ManpWIN. Just a thought. Regards, Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul de Leeuw Computers Central Coast Australia Email: pdeleeuw@deleeuw.com.au www: <http://www.deleeuw.com.au> ABN 72 360 822 562 ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonathan Osuch <osuchj@avalon.net> Date: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:12 am Subject: [Fractdev] Xfractint and .tga files
Tim,
We need to take any Unix specific code in diskvidu.c and move it into diskvid.c (and change the Makefile to use it). There are changes in diskvid.c that I made to fix the problems we were having with the .tga file format. These changes obviously didn't get transferred over to diskvidu.c. Another reason I'd like to do this is that we normally reserve the use of extra Unix files to code that was in an assembly language file. Don't know why it was done to a C file, but we should fix it.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________ Fractdev mailing list Fractdev@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractdev
On Friday 26 April 2002 07:18 pm, PHD wrote:
Is there a reason why we stay with targa? Surely it would be better to move to a more modern lossless true colour format such as PNG. This gives us compression and is viewable by a much larger range of applications. I have gone this way with ManpWIN.
Only because it works in Fractint and is broken in Xfractint. It also allows the output of the pixel iteration values to a file. Putting in PNG support can't happen until we have a Windows port up and running such that we can abandon the DOS based Fractint. Jonathan
Paul de Leeuw wrote:
Is there a reason why we stay with targa? Surely it would be better to move to a more modern lossless true colour format such as PNG. This gives us compression and is viewable by a much larger range of applications. I have gone this way with ManpWIN.
Jonathan already answered this, so this is an elaboration. After being a (very minor) member of the PNG team, I was embarressed to discover that the memory requirements for PNG (at least using Libpng) made it impossible to add PNG to my own program, the DOS fractint. Once I added the ability to save Xfractint files to PNG in a quick hack. It took about an hour (not worrying about saving the data in the PNG). I spent weeks with the DOS fractint and got it to compile (barely) but there wan't enough free memory to actually save to PNG. The one method that would have worked would have been to write a separate program to write the PNG. This wouldn't have been too hard but would have been a horribly crude solution. This may help you see where Jonathan and I are coming from, and why are priorities are a bit different than yours. If your Windows port is faithful enough to the DOS version, we could retire the DOS version, then we could do all kinds of things we have wanted to do for years. This is why our top priority is to port the existing program as copmpletely as possible before adding new features. Of course the other reason is that it is just good practice when porting a program between environments to add zero features so regression testing is possible. Tim
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Osuch -
pdeleeuw -
Tim Wegner