16 bit, 32 bit ? easy question(?)

[espee2]

Here I am again... OK I have an easy one for you. it's probably so simple, but I am confused I quess about the "bit" part....

what is the difference between 16 bit color and 32 bit color and 216 color? what should I use and why?

I currently use 800x600 resolution, with 16-bit color, and acording to my site statistics, so do 75% of my viewers... why?

[Harron]

really depends on your monitor. Most users have 15-17" monitors, and like to see what they are doing. I run 8x6 with 16 bits. Now with color, 16 bit color means that there are 16 places that either hold 1 or 0 (binary here). That's 32,768 colors. 32 bit is 2,147,483,648 colors, so the color is more "true", and true color is just that (supposedly).

It's just a matter of preference, I haven't noticed a difference between 16, 32 or True color.

[slimjim]

I also run 800x600 but with 24 bit true color. The higher the color, the slower the loading. I ran 16 bit until I got BroadBand. I didn't notice that much difference. BTW, it is 256 color. That is the old NS colors. It is all controlled by a combo of your GIF card and the monitor

I run the 800x600 for two reasons. 1st, I can see the screen :D. 2nd, my web sites are set up for that as are most commercial sites.

[Gats]

I use two settings - the notebook is at 1024x768 (maximum resolution for most notebook screens) @16 bit colour, as that is the maximum resolution/colour comination the graphics card will handle, on a 14.1" screen.
On the home PC I run at 1152x864@24 bit colour on a 17" (more real estate to play with).
As Corey pointed out the number of bits relates to the number of colours - 2 to the power of 15 for 16 bit (ignore bit 0) and to the power of 23 and 31 for 24 and 32 bit colour respectively. When getting beyond 24 bit it's nominal any difference that is noticable.
GIF format images are a 8 bit or 256 colour image and when an image is converted it's to the closest colour match within the 256 available.

Why is 800x600@16 bit the most commonly used? Several reasons I feel;

graphics card - inexpensive cards have less onboard memory and hence lower colour/resolution capabilities. The better the graphics card, the better the capability. A majority of home use off-the-shelf PC's have basic graphics cards standard.

monitor size and quality - not all monitors are alike. The larger the monitor the larger the picture, naturally, and with size you can increase the resolution of the desktop allowing you to see more of the program's workspace. Graphics programs benefit from this particularly. In doing so, though, the icons and text decreases in physical size (there are some modifications to offset this in your display properties).
Then you get down to monitor size. The larger screen size the higher the resolution that can be run (graphics card notwithstanding) whilst maintaining close to an average, say 800x600 on a 14" screen. You will find a majority of that 75% will have 14" or 15" screens. It is amazing the number of 14" screens still in use out there.
Also, monitor quality varies markedly. The less expensive the monitor generally the poorer the design and lower the image quality - it's usually blurrier due to poor focussing.

eyesight concerns - no all of us have close to perfect eyesight. It's a personal preference and those who require glasses for reading will normally run at a lower resolution on a larger screen so they can see the icons at least!

What should you use? Whatever your display can handle and looks best to you. I would stick to 16 bit colour, though. smile.gif

Gary.

[slimjim]

Gary,

I have a 17" screen and your quote below is why I run 800x600. Any more and "Where did everything go." :D. Have a good monitor, but a $1.295 card. That is about to change in a couple months. New mother board, CPU and a 32 mb card :D.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gats:

eyesight concerns - no all of us have close to perfect eyesight. It's a personal preference and those who require glasses for reading will normally run at a lower resolution on a larger screen so they can see the icons at least!

What should you use? Whatever your display can handle and looks best to you. I would stick to 16 bit colour, though. smile.gif

Gary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 03 March 2001: Message edited by: slimjim375 ]

[Gats]

Doing the CPU upgrade as well, Jim - probably a Celeron 733 to run at 900+!. New 30G HD is in already in. :D
The new 32meg graphics card will make a big difference. Mine's a 16meg Riva TNT. smile.gif

oh, yeah... anyone considering grabbing some more SDRAM think about it soon. It's still moving downwards in price but could bottom at anytime soon. Wholesale price is running under AU$1.10/meg currently.

Gary.

[espee2]

Thanks all... I don't have the 24bit option it goes 256, 16, 32.

I have a compaq with a Duron 750mgz. 64megs ram, (soon to upgrade to 128) 20gig hd. I oppted for a smaller HD because I can burn my graphics to CD and save space and money.

I have an NEC FE700 flat screen 17" monitor with 16" viewable and .25 dot pitch :D , I will continue to run 800x600 16bit. I noticed that when I run 32 bit, my "scrolling mouse" is very slow to scroll, and no noticable graphic difference. I have no idea what kind of cards I have, how can I find out?