Re: TOOLS: PPM -> SFImage Converter?

Greg Seidman ([email protected])
Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:15:15 -0400 (EDT)

} Greg Scallan writes:
}>I think it is best to have VRML writers support soli external image format as
}>opposed to SFImage, so that images don't need to be "imported" into wrl files.
} Yes, agreed. In fact, since soli users may want to turn off textures in the
} browser, we can improve performance *a lot* by just never retrieving those
} textures. If they're stored inline as SFImages, then they'll be downloaded
} even if they're never used.

Well, how about sfimagetoppm? We don't want to inline a lot, so it would be
useful to have a way of extracting sfimage nodes into texture files of
varia> well, since a small texture is reasonable to inline and the pbmplus/netpbm
packages can do soli very convenient image manipulation.

If I knew anything about the sfimage format I'd do it myself, but I don't.
I would really like to see this utility, however.

} We should limit the range of formats we expect browsers to support.
}
} > I guess JPEG is a good choice being it is freely available code.
} I agree.

I as well. Since the image will be texture-mapped, lossy compression is
better suited than lossless.

} Bernie Roehl
--Greg