Main Site Documentation

Boot Image


#1

OK I have no idea what I’m doing wrong here. I based the following code after the graphics demo and it keeps erroring on Configuration.StartupLogo.Set

            // Set Startup Image
            Bitmap bmp = Resources.GetBitmap(Resources.BitmapResources.BootUp);
            Configuration.StartUpLogo.Set(bmp.GetBitmap(), 149, 70);
            Configuration.StartUpLogo.Enabled = true;

Initially I was using a full screen bitmap (480x272) and figured perhaps that was too big so I used a 182x132 bitmap instead, still doesn’t work. It’s a normal bitmap 24bpp. Where am I going wrong?

Update: I managed to get it to work w/ a 180x180 image. Am I locked into these exact dimensions?


#2

Ah, after checking the docs and printing out the SupportedHeight/Width values it seems I am locked into 180x180. Pity it’s so small but I can work with it. Any plans to support larger boot images?


#3

You might also look at the GHI demo source code. It sets it’s own boot graphic.
(link removed)


#4

I believe GHI’s boot image is also not very big. It’s a small image on load with their logo.
Would like to know if it’s indeed limited to 180*180


#5

Yes this is a boot up “logo”. Why waste internal flash to make it bigger? Once your application runs then you can do whatever you like, including showing a full size image


#6

I’m not sure a bigger image constitutes as “waste” of flash.

The other point is the logo I was using actually took less space than a 180x180 image but being 2px over the max width (even thought it was some 50px under max height) it was rejected.

Perhaps if it’s a flash consideration instead of checking a max height/width you could check height * width <= 324000 which would ensure it stayed in that max number of pixels but could be a wider image.


#7

Good point skewworks.
Might be a small fix but very effective indeed.

I also agree with Gus, that a big image costs too much to load.

A fixed size in bytes would be good point though. As long as it’s not too big in bytes, it would not matter how wide or high it is.


#8

Bytes would be a really good thing to check, especially if the boot image were set to allow JPGs as well since you can make a much bigger JPG (depending on the content, of course) for the same footprint as a BMP.


#9

We didn’t have time to implement this flexibility. Currently, it is only intended to be a logo. It is printed to screen before anything else runs including memory heap, so it is not straightforward to make this run using JPG or something else…


#10

No time?! You’d think you had a whole bunch of customers all asking you for things…oh, wait. I know how the time crunch goes ;D

I would like to see this though when time permits and here’s a darn good reason why:

180x180 bmp = 95KB
320x240 jpg (100% quality) = 63KB
480x272 jpg (100% quality) = 113KB too big
480x272 jpg (95% quality) = 44KB!

I can have a full screen 480x272 image for almost 33% [italic]less space[/italic] than a 180x180 bmp


#11

User make a lot of assumptions but when it comes to internal implementation there are a lot of hidden and difficulty parts that you guys do not see. Fro example, when the boot image is displays, the system is not initialized yet…this mean most of the libs do not work…in more other words JPG is not possible :wink: This is why it is BMP and this is why more than 180x180 is not really important. It maybe important to some users but considering all the pros/cons, this is not going to be implemented.

We have gone ll the way and added a boot image, if the options to make fill screen is good then we would have done it already without anyone asking…trust me on this…this is a bad idea.