Are .bmp files really that bad?

[Bryan Sherman]

Dick raises a good point. My reference to storage space was for the
linked graphics, not the size of the final PDF. I would hope that the
size different would be negligible (due to how PDF converts the source
graphic, not sure it it handles one format over another more
efficiently).

I'm certainly not recommending BMP as a target for future captures,
but since they are already in BMP format the palette size is moot
(converting to PNG isn't going to return any colors that may be lost).

Taking a tangent, I think I am in the minority, but the palette thing
doesn't concern me as much as others. I have always used SnagIt to
convert screen caps to 8-bit color and save as GIF for optimal file
size. The only time it effects the quality is with gradient
backgrounds which I rarely encounter. Most of what I capture can be
expressed completely in 256 color (8-bit) and GIF is supported by all
me tools. Of course, as always YMMV.

That being said, recent conversations have lead me to believe I should
reconsider and start using PNG. Sounds like it has a size advantage
over GIF, and is supported by more and more tools.

Bryan

On 8/31/06, Dick Margulis <margulisd at comcast.net> wrote:
> Bryan Sherman wrote:
> > The only issue I can think of is file size. BMP files are considerably
> > larger than  PNG or GIF. May not be worht the effort if you have
> > enough disk apce.
> >
> > Bryan
> >
>
> File size may not be an issue after the PDF is generated, depending on
> the compression settings selected for Distiller.
>
> However, .bmp is limited to a 16-color palette. This may or may not be
> problematic, depending on whether color is involved in the first place
> and depending on what colors are used in the interface.
>
> Dick