From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-17 14:50, Carlos E. R. wrote:   
   > On 2026-02-17 23:32, Arno Welzel wrote:   
   >> Carlos E. R., 2026-02-17 13:44:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-02-17 12:54, Arno Welzel wrote:   
   >>>> Carlos E. R., 2026-02-17 11:30:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> [...]   
   >>>>> A solid colour, when selected in a computer, uses far less resources   
   >>>>> than a picture, even if it is a solid colour picture. A solid colour   
   >>>>> picture still has to be drawn pixel by pixel. No solid fill function!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A solid color JPEG is very efficient - since JPEG does not store single   
   >>>> pixels but the mathematical description how to construct the   
   >>>> content. In   
   >>>> the end, the device will also just draw a black rectangle, when you   
   >>>> create JPEG with just black in it. There is no "pixel by pixel" in this   
   >>>> case. PNG should also be very efficient in this case, even though it is   
   >>>> lossless compression.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is still a picture, it has to be drawn pixel by picture. The CPU   
   >>> doesn't know that all the pixels are the same colour.   
   >>   
   >> Wrong - the CPU *does* know that, since the compression algorithm tells   
   >> the CPU "this is a big black rectangle".   
   >   
   > Maybe, maybe not. That data is internal to the generic jpg library.   
   > Probably the initial picture is decoded once and stored in bitmap form.   
   Any other way would be insane.   
      
   A JPEG might not be expensive to decode, but it's got to be more   
   expensive that simply moving data from a bitmap.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)