On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:44:36 -0500
Random832 <random832_AT_fastmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz <web_AT_apgwoz.com> writes:
> > Well, for one, it's a binary encoding, not ASCII.
>
> I'm not sure why that makes it better, unless you meant for space
> consumption (which I suppose is somehow very important for uncompressed
> raster image formats) in which case you're ignoring the fact that PPM
> has a format where only the header is ASCII.
It's not "better"; it sucks less. There's a huge difference.
"better" is a matter of opinion. PPM has a lot of features / alternate
formats / modes of data representation / endian choices. It supports
binary 256-color, maximum. Anything higher can be represented in ascii.
PPM was designed to handle anything and is complex enough to warrant
having its own library to parse.
farbfeld has one format/data representation/endian choice. You write one
set of code that can handle all farbfeld images. It's a good
intermediate format. Just write converter front-ends for all other
image formats, and the farbfeld client/consumer code stays much the
same.
--
Matt Boswell
Received on Wed Nov 18 2015 - 00:05:43 CET