CUPASH vs. Brawlbox

[Yuna]

I read somewhere that there is picture quality degradation when using BrawlBox. Using BrawlBox and .pngs, I saw noticeable picture quality degradation on some of my CSPs.

I haven't yet tried other formats (such as .tga and .tiff). So my question is: It was implied by the same person that using CUPASH circumvents picture quality degradation. Is there a way to, using BrawlBox, attain the same picture quality as with CUPASH (such as a certain filetype)?

 

[libertyernie]

With CUPASH, pictures have to be indexed (and kept to the same number of colors as the image it's replacing.) But there's no reason to use CUPASH, because BrawlBox will take indexed pictures too, and if you keep them to the same number of colors as the original there will be no quality problems.

See this image for where to find the number of colors:

 

[hotdogturtle]

CUPASH is 100% unnecessary anymore.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

CUPASH has a custom CSP limit, and you're limited to only 72 colors for the big portraits; 32 for the small portraits. Additionally, you have to use magenta (#ff00ff) for transparency, meaning that anything semi-transparent will have some shades of magenta left behind.

BrawlBox enables you to make portraits with as many as 256 colors, and semi-transparency can be involved as well. Also, using BrawlBox to replace portraits can actually reduce the PAC file's file size, depending on the portrait's quality level.

 

[Yuna]

Thanks for all of the answers, guys!