Re: Bitmap loading from array - representation

> On Dec 6, 2007, at 14:24 , johnps11@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>> On Dec 1, 2007, at 20:34 , Pete wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's also not clear to me why this array is
>>>> size of 120, when we have an rectangular region of
>>>> 40x40, and what is the difference of depth 1,2,4 ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Depth is the number of bits per pixel. Depth 2 means 2 bits per
>>> pixel, hence 4 colors.
>>>
>>> The array stores 32 bits per element. So at depth 2 you get 16 pixels
>>> per element. You need 3 elements per row for 40 pixels. 40 rows times
>>> 3 words per row is 120. Mystery solved.
>>>
>>> FYI, pixels are stored big-endian by default.
>>>
>>> And I'm pretty sure Form even has a class comment, as should Bitmap.
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>
>> I have to admit that Bert's explanation has me none the wiser - the
>> leap
>> from 2 16 bit words per element (16 pixels) meaning that 3 elements
>> (96
>> bits, 48 pixels) equals 40 pixels, which is 3 words per row seems a
>> little
>> unclear (as 48 != 40 in most sane algebras).
>
> I wrote "32 bits per element". The array stores 32 bit numbers
> (a.k.a. words). For 40 pixels at 2 bits each you need a row of at
> least 80 bits. That means you need three 32 bit numbers giving you 96
> bits per row of which 16 are unused. This wastes up to 31 bits per
> row, but letting each row start on a word boundary is much more
> efficient. You can think of a row as being "padded" up to the next
> multiple of 32 bits.
>
> - Bert -

Thanks Bert - I think I finally understand.

Looking at what I wrote, I didn't proof read well, I came across as a
pompous ass.  I shouldn't have been so quick to click on 'send' - my
apologies.  Transpose the words 'not' and ' designed' to get closer to
what I meant, as against what I said!

John