hi, Martin Nordholts schrieb: > On 07/07/2009 01:35 PM, yahvuu wrote: >> I see two poles for the rendering strategy, both of which have downsides: >> >> - eager rendering: render as soon as possible, latest when >> saving the composition >> > > Hi yahvuu > > I don't see why the whole composition would have to be rendered just > because it is saved. Or did you mean "latest when exporting the > composition"? no, by eager rendering i indeed mean that the saved file contains a rendered bitmap of full image resolution. And yes, when rendering takes just a few seconds, this stragegy wastes disk space. > I wonder if we really need to let the user manage this Consider a huge panorama image with some operations like denoise and unsharp mask applied, that takes, say 2 hours, to render. If we go with lazy rendering, the following might happen: The user sends a JPEG to a colleague for review -- takes 2 hours to render. The image is OK, the user creates a TIFF for the print shop -- takes 2 hours again. I think in this case, the user would be better off if he had some control about when the rendering happens. I'm not shure: just a corner case or something GIMP should care about? > wouldn't it work > pretty well to lazily render an area around the currently showed part of > the image (so that performance when scrolling in the vicinity is good), > but limit it in size (so that memory usage is limited). IIUC, you're targeting quick re-opening of a composition here. Me too, thinks that some persistent caching can be useful. Regarding image browsing, a thumbnail plus a preview of the whole image at screen resolution might be useful, too. However, that's different from controlling the rendering of the full resolution. greetings, peter _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
