Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 04-18-2007, 05:50 AM
Llorean Llorean is offline
Rockbox Developer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 397

BMPs can be scaled, and a patch to do so exists. PNG and JPEG aren't more scalable, really. In the end the advantage of PNG/JPEG = slightly better efficiency on disk space. The advantage of BMP: Less work to load them, less code to load them, so better battery efficiency. Since you have much more disk space than battery life, it's definitely better to use BMP. As well, there's no jpeg or png decoder in the core, just the plugin, and for it to work with album art it'd have to be added to the core (meaning that it would cost RAM from everyone, even those not using album art, things in the core are there for everybody, so it needs to be used conservatively, unlike plugins).

There's also no real advantage to using embedded album art. I mean, with that you end up with one image per song, almost as wasteful of space as BMP if not moreso, with the only benefit being that since they're built into the song, instead of being a single cover.bmp, you can move individual songs elsewhere and keep their album art instead of having to copy a second file (which goes along anyway if you move the folder.)

So really most of the advantages you see to the other methods are imaginary. There are mass-downloaders that will download .jpeg yes, but then you can immediately use a mass-converted to convert all the jpegs to bmps at the largest needed size, and let the resize patch shrink them for WPSes that need smaller ones.

So, the only real advantage I see is that you don't have to run that mass-bmp-converter step. Did I miss something?


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.