bmp pictures VS tiles

ID:265842
 
May 15 2008, 2:49 pm
I was planing to make new turfs to replace the RPG Maker turfs and I found myself making sprites, then I started to wonder wouldn't be smarter to make the sprites then turn them to bmp files then have one big let's say house icon or would it be smarter to turn them into single 32 x 32 pixels. Would it really change anything on the sever like add extra lag or is it a good short cut.
May 15 2008, 2:51 pm
No, because .bmp is not a format that should ever be used online.
May 15 2008, 2:53 pm
In response to Garthor
Garthor wrote:
No, because .bmp is not a format that should never be used in general
Fix'd.

50BMP pics in my drive take up 300MBs. It's a space hog.
May 15 2008, 8:26 pm
In response to Garthor
Right, but you can use PNG images instead, just as good without the bloat. DMI icons are actually PNG images internally so using a large PNG in place of a group of DMI images shouldn't really cause any extra overhead.
May 15 2008, 10:01 pm
In response to King of Slimes
King of Slimes wrote:
Garthor wrote:
No, because .bmp is not a format that should ever be used in general
Fix'd'd
May 15 2008, 10:14 pm
In response to SuperAntx
SuperAntx wrote:
King of Slimes wrote:
Garthor wrote:
No, because .bmp is not a format that should ever be used in general
Fix'd'd
BMPs are absurdly large, so yeah... tell me how they should be used.
May 15 2008, 10:50 pm
In response to Eternal Desire
Eternal Desire wrote:
SuperAntx wrote:
King of Slimes wrote:
Garthor wrote:
<font color='orange'>No, because .bmp is not a format that should ever be used in general</font>
Fix'd'd
BMPs are absurdly large, so yeah... tell me how they should be used.

Please read.
May 15 2008, 10:57 pm
In response to Jemai1
KoS editted the 'ever' part to 'never', so you read? O.o
May 15 2008, 11:06 pm
In response to Eternal Desire
I already underlined the 'not' part for you. You should use 'ever' instead of 'never'.
SuperAntx (not KoS) is correct.

Yes. I do read.
May 16 2008, 7:41 am
In response to Eternal Desire
BMP's only take space if you don't know how to save them.

But aside from that, saving as .GIF, .PNG or .JPEG(for some files) are the best.

It may sound weird, but with the different combinations of colors for each image, a JPEG can be higher in size than a PNG(for example). But with another combination of colors the PNG can be a lot higher than the JPEG.
May 16 2008, 8:30 am
In response to Subzero1
Subzero1 wrote:
BMP's only take space if you don't know how to save them.

Nope. .bmp is a very basic file format that is, basically, an RGB value for each pixel. This makes it very easy to read, because it's not compressed or encoded in any way, and you need the files in this format in memory in order to draw them on the screen. There is no way to save them in a manner that makes them smaller because they have no compression, and if they did then they wouldn't be .bmp files.
May 16 2008, 1:14 pm
In response to Garthor
Actually the .bmp format can be small if you are happy with monochrome. I use this for polygon stippling and height-maps commonly.

George Gough
May 18 2008, 9:04 pm
In response to KodeNerd
But wouldn't PNGs still be smaller in those cases too?
May 19 2008, 1:32 am
In response to Flame Sage
Yep. Obviously enough (not for Gourge Geogh :P), you can use any colors you want (ie only black and white) in any image format, it isn't a bitmap-specific thing. It'll reduce the size on any format (it can also cause losing pixels), so the PNG which was also smaller to begin with, remains smaller. Of course this is a bad form of "compression" since you lose lots of image data.
May 19 2008, 5:01 am
In response to Flame Sage
As far as I know, bmp's are only smaller for tiny images. (around 5x5 px)

Also, you don't need to save them as monochrome to save space; you can also save them at 256 and 16 colors, which saves a lot of space (although you don't get to pick the colors).