Talk:Bitmap

Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New fork from BMP file format

This fork is about the generic bitmap concept, organization thereof, file formats, etc.

The BMP file format article is the moved version of what was briefly at bitmap, now partially restored to its former narrow focus on that file format.

The raster graphics article overlaps this one a lot. I think it should expand to give an overview of raster computer graphics techniques such as line-drawing and 3D rendering, while the present article focuses on low-level organization and storage of bitmaps, and maybe a bit on bitmaps in displays and printers.

Speak up if you have a better idea... Dicklyon 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relation to Image file formats

Should some of the information in Image file formats perhaps be merged into here (or vice versa)? --jacobolus (t) 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like which parts? I'm unclear what you have in mind. This article is not about file formats, and the one on file formats is mostly about formats for recording these things. Seems to me that things are split up about right, but I'm listening for better ideas. Dicklyon 03:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT --Kubanczyk 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know… that's why I asked. I don't think they're badly split up necessarily. Just the lead section lists off some formats, which might suggest they'll be described in the article, but as I said, I don't know. It depends a bit on how deep/technical this article becomes. At some point, it might be nice to use some of those formats as examples of different bit-packing schemes. --jacobolus (t) 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a question, my answer is: this bitmap article should not be merged with any "file format" because the subject is different. Also, do not duplicate information too much in overlapping articles. It makes some people crazy. Here, the essence is a dictionary definition + disambiguation. "Storing pixels in such-and-such array of bytes" is not rocket science. --Kubanczyk 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly was not suggesting they be merged. And okay. :) --jacobolus (t) 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A completely unrelated point: should it be mentioned that bitmaps can also be stored using floats or doubles per channel per pixel? OS X 10.4 for instance has some nifty APIs for dealing with floating point bitmaps, and I'm not sure, but I think some graphics hardware might also use floating point bitmaps (maybe one of you knows?). --jacobolus (t) 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT again :) It does not matter if you and I know little about floating point bitmaps. Mention it and provide a reliable source, why not? It will catch the eye of a future visitor who will explain/expand/remove. This visitor will not come to this talk page. --Kubanczyk 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely needed. Feel free to start. Here is a source to start with. Dicklyon 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old page history

I've moved some old page history in this article to Talk: Bitmap/Page history. It contains content that was merged with other articles so it needs to be preserved. Graham87 09:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What concept is the article about?

Really, what property is crucial to the so-named “bitmap”? 1 bit per pixel? But there is the article binary image. The concept of coding pixels by equal chunks of information? But there is the article raster graphics. The use of the word in some brands of raster file formats? But there is Bitmap (disambiguation).

Now I consider this article an article about the word, not the notion. I dropped some interwikis until we reached some clarification. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is bitmap I don't get it!!!!

Merge

Monochrome Bitmap is a trivial unreferenced stub that ought to be merged here. Could we get a 2/3 majority vote of at least 127 editors, each with at least 50 but not more than 5000 edits in the preceding 365 calendar days (holidays and Jimbo's birthday excepted)? We can then have the motion to merge these two articles added to the agenda for the next editorial committee meeting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiarly, that one got redirected to Binary image. That's way off since monochrome is often more than 1 bit per pixel. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Redefinition

In this edit, an anon changed the usual image-specific definition to a general abstracted and pretty useless definition that does not help the reader understand that the conventional meaning of this word is about images (though, yes, there are other uses, too). This needs to be fixed, either by going back to this article being primarily about the image topic, and reflecting that in the lead, or by more clearly indicating the two distinct uses in the lead in such a way that the image application is immediately apparent, without the offputting abstracted stuff first. Does anyone care how I go about this or want to help? Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Recursive X-Y cut" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Recursive X-Y cut has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Recursive X-Y cut until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]