yes, there is something to add here. the problem is clearly not the
question of rectangular objects or UI-lameness though it surely
is a factor. the real issue is you are always interpolating a
2d real coordinate system [your image] to a 2d integer coordinate
system [your screen]. the loss of precision here can be offset
cleverly in many ways namely anti-aliasing, shading etc. of course
increasing the granularity of what we call a `pixel` is really the
best way to get around such interpolative errors and thats why
as resolution increases your images appear sharper, better and more
"dense". taking this argument , at a more fundamental level its a
problem between analog [nature] and discrete [computer] domains. its
really the reason why we have to "sample" signals to feed into
"digital signal processors" [computers].
its a lot of math and i think foley, van damme [sp?] introduction to
graphics is a good book to start out with.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Ganesh Swami wrote:
CC-ing to the list, others may come up with interesting stuff
Thiagarajan wanted us to know:
Good Morning Mr. Ganesh Swami !
Thank you for your prompt reply
from your reply i am able to get the message " Till date ,computers can
create images only in rectangular base" is that the meaning ?.
Close. Necessity is the mother of all inventions.
UI gurus have only been thinking about rectangular UI objects. There
hasn't been a need for irregular objects.
Tell me why you would want an irregular image.
Its much easier to store just four coods (x1,y1,x2,y2) instead of
numerous points along the border.
<!-- insert arguments about vector and raster stuff -->
A simple example. The mouse pointer is not a rectangle. But, if you open
the XBM or ICO (or CUR) file in a suitable editor, you will find that it
is rectangular. With some simple tricks (XOR), you can get any shape
is it not possible to make fundamental changes in the OS itsef ?.
What has the OS got to do with this ?
is it not possible to make a new format of image where the base is not a
Sure, it is possible. But think of the amount of information you've got
to store about each pixel. The best (and only) approach is to stick with
transparency. Transparency with layering (flat) can be neat.
kindly enlightn me.^^^^^^^
[ this is becasue , let us say
1) i am linux
I wanted to say something, but cant remember what it was. ;-)
2) i am in terminal window [ or TUI command prompt ]
3) there is an image in the current directory [ it can be any format , bmp,
jpg, or our own format ]
4) i want to display it at the center of the screen.
5) i should not use any application programing,
6) i have to use only the existing commands ]
I am losing you here. Do you want an (Textual) Image Viewer ? Please
have a Wonderful day[...snip...]
----- Original Message -----
From: Ganesh Swami <ganesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Linux Chennai <ilugc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: _ /~\'_
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world
to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable."
George Bernard Shaw
To unsubscribe, email ilugc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe <password> address"
in the subject or body of the message.