From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: PBM Utilities Date: 16 Jun 2000 10:35:19 GMT Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) Lines: 27 Distribution: world Message-ID: <8icvt7$2b6$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE> References: <394776F6 DOT 43BC33C9 AT celco DOT co DOT uk> <8i7vb5$ieq$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <8iamcl$q1c$1 AT nnrp1 DOT deja DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 961151719 2406 137.226.32.75 (16 Jun 2000 10:35:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jun 2000 10:35:19 GMT Originator: broeker@ To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Damian Yerrick wrote: > Actually, a binary format such as PNG would probably be better. IIRC, > a PGM (portable gray map) file is really a C source file. No, it isn't. You're confusing PGM and XBM/XPM there. The latter really are C sourcefiles (i.e. you can just #include in a C program, and the image will be compiled in). PGM and its brothers are extremely simple format. I actually doubt that any simpler, while still self-contained file format for pixel images could possibly be invented. They contain of just 3 elements: 1) a 'magic string' so you can see what type of file it is 2) size and bit-depth of the image, as human-readable numbers. 3) the uncompressed image content, either in human-readable numbers, too, or as raw binary data. Wether PNG or some other, more 'advanced' file format can be an alternative to the simplicity of PBM is a question of application. If storage space essentially doesn't matter, while parsing and generation speed of image data is of key importance, PBM may well outperform every other file format. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.