Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******

Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******

• To: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******
• From: Michael Wulff Nielsen <mal@dit.ou.dk>
• Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:56:58 +0100 (MET)
• In-Reply-To: <199612060543.FAA01415@spam.mr.net>
• Reply-To: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org

Read my calc. a 240*(128*3)*2 picture will fill 23k. Why does bullock take
up 30k???????

Michael Wulff Nielsen.

On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Kevin T. Huber wrote:

> 
> They would, of course, if they were larger than 240x128, which the Sandra
> Bullock pictures are.
> 
> -Kevin
> 
> Michael Wulff Nielsen writes:
>  > 
>  > Yeah, but even 3 pictures in greyscale should not take 30k of ram.
>  > it goes like this:
> 

• Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******
• From: "Kevin T. Huber" <khuber@MR.Net>

• Prev: Re: LF: ***** Greyscale experts...READ THIS NOW (PLEASE) ******
• Next: RE: LF: RE: ** NEW GRAYSCALE CONVERTER **
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread