[UserNotFound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mono When I then ZOOM in on the image, clearly the image, picture displayed on the screen is "different", but the allocated memory is NOT, in only changed by about a dozen K. WHERE is this zoomed image bitmap being stored? It can't be stored in system memory, because there was no allocation for it.

When i open a 4.97k picture with windows picture and fax viewer, by zooming in all the way over a 3200x1200x32 display, i get a system ram increase of 23 megs. Although with photoshop and the same situation, the system ram does not change one Kb. It seems to me there are 2 possibilites here.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falqon Which is 7,680,000 bytes, which is 7,500 kilobytes

btw, k=10^3, K=1024, k=kilo, K=Kilo

7,680,000 bytes = 7,680 kilobytes, or 7,500 Kilobytes = 7.32Mb
if'n you're gonna be correctin' someone, atleast be all the way right

 

[AdamWill]

the answer to the question is there *is* no zoomed image bitmap. All the information that is necessary to display any level of magnification of any bitmap-type image file is present in the file itself. There's no need to go creating some kind of actual *image* data for the zoomed-in view, it's just a simple transform from the image itself.

 

[Falqon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UserNotFound btw, k=10^3, K=1024, k=kilo, K=Kilo 7,680,000 bytes = 7,680 kilobytes, or 7,500 Kilobytes = 7.32Mb if'n you're gonna be correctin' someone, atleast be all the way right

It was in quotation marks for a reason.

Feel free to e-mail the author http://www.dansdata.com/gz014.htm and convince him not to use good grammer and utilize useless capitalization.

 

[PFRfan]

It seems I remember Dan (of Dan's Data) spending some time dealing with the proper use of capitilization of kilobytes vs. kilobits, etc. in one of his articles. It seems like the conclusion was that there is enough variation in actual usage to render it moot.

But that's me trying to remember something LONG ago....

 

[UserNotFound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFRfan It seems I remember Dan (of Dan's Data) spending some time dealing with the proper use of capitilization of kilobytes vs. kilobits, etc. in one of his articles. It seems like the conclusion was that there is enough variation in actual usage to render it moot. But that's me trying to remember something LONG ago....

t k is a metric prefix, and K is the prefeix for binary 2^10 for use with digital systems, what's REALLY confusing is abbreviating bits vs. bytes. it's really disconcerning to see download speeds that LOOK like 2 megs a second, but really aren't because someone doesn't know how to abbreviate

it's not moot on a EE or CS exam, i know that much for sure

 

[thomasshi]

Thank you all for valuable suggestions. I've been out of town for a while.

My PC is AMD Semphron 2800+, 768M PC2700, integrated S3 video, 120G + 160 G ATA HD in a Compaq 1200NX box.

I am planning to use it as a multimedia PC, for good music most time, some photo editing (photography is one of my hobbies), video editiing in the near future, and some video games.

 

[Falqon]

ouch, the fact that it's a sempron is killing you.

 

[thomasshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falqon ouch, the fact that it's a sempron is killing you.

Why?

I know Sempron is not as good as Athlon or P4.

I have 2 PCs:
Dell 2400 with P4 2.2, 400MHz, no AGP. Front audio compatible with Santa Cruz, but not AV710 (earphone only)
Compaq 1200NX with Sempron 2800+, with SATA and AGP, MB has front audio connection compatible with Chaintech AV710 (earphone, mic, line-in).

Both PCs are quite if no video card with fan installed.
Now I just bought 1GB PC2700 from Staples, I can install them in either one.

BAsed on the fact the Compaq has AGP, SATA, front audio, etc., I prefer this one. I know it is not a highly loaded PC, but I think it might meet most of my requirements.


BTW, I am thinking buying a fanless ATI All In Wonder 9600 video card with TV-tuner, so that I can watch and record TV, make it a versatile multimedia PC. I hope to continue hear advices from you guys.

Thanks!

 

[mshan]

ATI has released a Theater 550 Pro chip which is supposed to be a lot better than the Theater 200 chip integrated with current All-In-Wonder cards.

You might be better off getting a dedicated video card and a separate TV tuner / capture card.

 

[devwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomasshi Why? I know Sempron is not as good as Athlon or P4.

It's not killing you, it just bruises people's pride, which they consider as bad as death

Every PC (but not the G5

) I use currently has a slower proc than yours, and I do multi-monitor, photo editting, desktop publishing, web development, HTPC, even some video editting in a medical environment. Your proc isn't your week spot (it will be in 2-3 years, but what else is new).

Edit: One caveat to add, the fact that it's compaq hardware will likely injure you in the long run more than the proc. I have rarely (even/especially by workstation class machines like the HP Kayak) been impressed by the motherboards/chipsets used by HP/Compaq. However, I generally build my boxes so I'm biased. You'd be shocked how much of a difference a quality motherboard makes though --- I sure was.

 

[thomasshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by devwild It's not killing you, it just bruises people's pride, which they consider as bad as death Every PC (but not the G5 ) I use currently has a slower proc than yours, and I do multi-monitor, photo editting, desktop publishing, web development, HTPC, even some video editting in a medical environment. Your proc isn't your week spot (it will be in 2-3 years, but what else is new). Edit: One caveat to add, the fact that it's compaq hardware will likely injure you in the long run more than the proc. I have rarely (even/especially by workstation class machines like the HP Kayak) been impressed by the motherboards/chipsets used by HP/Compaq. However, I generally build my boxes so I'm biased. You'd be shocked how much of a difference a quality motherboard makes though --- I sure was.

I am not crazy about latest CPU. I got a whole Compaq box for only $180. What I am looking for is to take the best from the hardware I've got, including performance/cost efficient upgrades.

I bought this Compaq one a month ago, but I still haven't used it much. I replaced the 40GB HD with the one I am using in Dell 2400, found it didn't start at all. Maybe Compaq made all MB support on the backup files.

I am going to add sound, video, TV-card. This may help to avoid Compaq drivers as much as I can.

 

[thomasshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshan ATI has released a Theater 550 Pro chip which is supposed to be a lot better than the Theater 200 chip integrated with current All-In-Wonder cards. You might be better off getting a dedicated video card and a separate TV tuner / capture card.

Thanks!

I purpose to add a TV-tuner is to record TV sometimes. I am a cheap Win-To-Go card now but not satisfied with its sound (mono). I also have an annoying FX5200 video that I decide to replace with fanless one. ATI AIW happens to be a combination of both functions I need in a price range I can accept. But the ATI AIW seems does not support DScaler.

 

[mshan]

Leadtek Winfast 2000XP Deluxe is a nice TV capture card with a very intuitive interface.

It uses the Fusion BT878 chip, so it supports Dscaler.

However, it is only 8 bit so it's captures are quite grainy (all of the 10 bit decoders have Macrovision copy protection) and it's OTA TV tuner sucks. However, if you are using cable, it works very very well. Don't get the non-Deluxe version because it can only capture in mono.