On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:44:36 -0500 Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew Gwozdziewycz <w...@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
