Screensnap 2.2 memory problems?

Thread View: comp.sys.mac.apps

5 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

5 total messages Started by Charles C. Allen Tue, 08 May 1990 04:21

#1814

Author: Charles C. Allen
Date: Tue, 08 May 1990 04:21

19 lines
1403 bytes

I occasionally need to print (not just capture to the clipboard or a
file) a portion of a large 8-bit color screen (E-Machines T-19).  I
was considering Capture (apparently can't print directly), Exposure
(seems rather complicated for some of the occasional users who would
need to use it), and Snapjot (seemed like the best "fit" of the
commercial packages I found).

Then Screensnap 2.2 appeared on the net.  It seems to do all we need,
and works fine with images that are small enough.  Unfortunately,
there is a size beyond which it simply will not capture an image, even
when it's application size is bumped up to over 3M.  Now, since a
full-screen image should take less than 1M (1024x768x8), I'm a little
confused about why it continues to complain about insufficient memory.
Any ideas?

Charles Allen			Internet: cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu
Department of Physics		HEPnet:   purdnu::allen, fnal::cca
Purdue University		talknet:  317/494-9776
West Lafayette, IN  47907

Re: Screensnap 2.2 memory problems?

#1815

Author: Herb Poppe
Date: Tue, 08 May 1990 14:17

16 lines
1168 bytes

In article <3667@newton.physics.purdue.edu> cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu 
(Charles C. Allen) writes:
> Then Screensnap 2.2 appeared on the net.  It seems to do all we need,
> and works fine with images that are small enough.  Unfortunately,
> there is a size beyond which it simply will not capture an image, even
> when it's application size is bumped up to over 3M.  Now, since a
> full-screen image should take less than 1M (1024x768x8), I'm a little
> confused about why it continues to complain about insufficient memory.
> Any ideas?

1024x768x8 = 6,291,456

Herb Poppe            NCAR
hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu  1850 Table Mesa Drive
                      Boulder, CO  80307-3000
                      (303) 497-1296

Re: Screensnap 2.2 memory problems?

#1817

Author: Herb Poppe
Date: Tue, 08 May 1990 14:30

25 lines
1624 bytes

In article <7258@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes:
> In article <3667@newton.physics.purdue.edu> 
cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu 
> (Charles C. Allen) writes:
> > Then Screensnap 2.2 appeared on the net.  It seems to do all we need,
> > and works fine with images that are small enough.  Unfortunately,
> > there is a size beyond which it simply will not capture an image, even
> > when it's application size is bumped up to over 3M.  Now, since a
> > full-screen image should take less than 1M (1024x768x8), I'm a little
> > confused about why it continues to complain about insufficient memory.
> > Any ideas?
> 
> 1024x768x8 = 6,291,456
> 
Well, foolish me. I should know better than to post a knee-jerk follow-up. 
Bits ain't bytes! Abject apologies and all that...

Harry Chesley, the NetNews reader stack needs a way to cancel a posting 
(if the NNTP protocol will support it). We dummies need one last 
opportunity to save ourselves from stupidom.

Herb Poppe            NCAR
hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu  1850 Table Mesa Drive
                      Boulder, CO  80307-3000
                      (303) 497-1296

Re: Screensnap 2.2 memory problems?

#1818

Author: Matthew T. Russotto
Date: Tue, 08 May 1990 16:43

17 lines
1357 bytes

In article <7258@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes:
>In article <3667@newton.physics.purdue.edu> cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu 
>(Charles C. Allen) writes:
>> Then Screensnap 2.2 appeared on the net.  It seems to do all we need,
>> and works fine with images that are small enough.  Unfortunately,
>> there is a size beyond which it simply will not capture an image, even
>> when it's application size is bumped up to over 3M.  Now, since a
>> full-screen image should take less than 1M (1024x768x8), I'm a little
>> confused about why it continues to complain about insufficient memory.
>> Any ideas?
>
>1024x768x8 = 6,291,456
BITS.  Which is 6,291,456/8 = 786,432 BYTES

--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?

Re: Screensnap 2.2 memory problems?

#1826

Author: Charles C. Allen
Date: Wed, 09 May 1990 04:58

15 lines
1105 bytes

>>                                                      Now, since a
>> full-screen image should take less than 1M (1024x768x8)....

> 1024x768x8 = 6,291,456

I was obviously a little too terse with the original numbers.  A
1024x1024 pixel screen has 2^20 = 1 048 576 = pixels (a "computer"
million, usually denoted by the prefix "M").  On an 8-bit color
screen, each pixel takes 1 byte.  Hence a "1024x1024x8" screen takes
1Mbyte of memory.

Charles Allen			Internet: cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu
Department of Physics		HEPnet:   purdnu::allen, fnal::cca
Purdue University		talknet:  317/494-9776
West Lafayette, IN  47907

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads