3 ms·

How does that even matter? The technique being used is real color cycling. Whether the palette is abstracted in hardware or software hardly makes a difference..

• ajross 15y ago
  The point was narrower: If you don't already know how this works, calling it "true" pallet animation is terribly confusing (imagine someone looking through specs for where the pallet API for the canvas is). If the title was "8bit-style Color Cycling in HTML" I never would have posted.
  • henrikschroder 14y ago
    And to nit-pick even further: These images resemble the graphics of the Amiga and Atari home systems, which were 16-bit systems. To do this on a PC you would need XGA graphics (VGA couldn't do 640x480x256) which arrived at the PC around the time of the 386 processor, which was 32-bit. I think you could probably attach a XGA card to a 286 PC, but that was still 16-bit. I don't think anyone ever paired a XGA card with an 8088 PC, which actually was an 8-bit system. So, this isn't even 8-bit art, it's more likely 32-bit art. :-)
    • kronusaturn 14y ago
      It's 8-bit color; 8 bits per pixel for 256 colors. Nothing to do with the CPU.
• exDM69 14y ago
  Look at your CPU usage while viewing this page. The idea behind the original palette rotation tricks was to use less CPU. The actual palette values were deep inside the graphics adapter and was faster to change than the actual pixels on the screen. Maybe we should do palette rotation tricks with (WebGL) shaders running on the GPU h/w to get a similar effect without the CPU hit.
  • ajross 14y ago
    Even that wouldn't pass the "true" test. You could implement the "pallet" using a texture lookup on the GPU of course, but could only apply it by rewriting all the pixels.