First post, by Rikintosh
- Rank
- Member
Why 320x400 instead of 640x400? I know the obvious answer would be to save some sort of memory.
But I wanted to fundamentally understand why that is, and why a 640x230 image doesn't work?
Edit: I found this: "Just like the bootsplash screens in earlier versions of Windows, there was a hard but poorly documented limit on how large the compressed file could be, because of the very limited memory available during the boot process (the very reason that RLE was used in the first place - a plain BMP would have been 125kb and thus entirely too large; the default images are around 10 to 70kb each). If the file was too large, it would either simply fail to display or cause the system to crash, which required the user to reboot and drop into DOS mode before the logo had a chance to load, and either delete it or rename it to prevent the system trying to display it again before it could be fixed or replaced. Staying below, and moreover editing an image to bring it below this limit was an imprecise science that mostly required taking advantage of the particular characteristics of RLE, e.g. ensuring there were sufficient areas of the screen with long horizontal runs of the same color, by reducing the dither quality or color reduction mode, shrinking it slightly and adding a black border a few pixels wide all around, etc. Each run allowed a two byte code to represent a strip many pixels wide, and hence blank spaces or areas of flat color compressed very tightly, whereas regions with no repeated colors at all were at best uncompressed, at worst slightly larger than they would otherwise have been."
I'm now looking for a way to load the image in another resolution
Take a look at my blog: http://rikintosh.blogspot.com
My Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfRUbxkBmEihBEkIK32Hilg
