>On 11/23/10 08:24, Patrick Horgan wrote: >What is the aim here? Unless I've missed the point, it seems like a >trade-off between computation time for the matrix and memory footprint >of storing all the possible values that matrix could hold. >That's fairly bit of memory to grab if there's not a real need. How long >does it take to calculate matrix each time? Is this even a noticeable >proportion of the time required to apply the filter to an image? >If I've got the wrong end of the stick, what is the problem with the >current code? >regards. I think they're talking about trading off between spending CPU time computing the matrix and spending memory storing it precomputed. I think I disagree with you about it being a "fair bit of memory". 30-40k of memory in't a big deal by today's standards, and when you put that beside a modestly sized image which can easily run a few megabytes, I would consider it entirely reasonable. That's assuming you release that memory after your unsharp tool is done. The computation time is probably in the same class... my computer is fairly brisk and I don't think the time spent computing the matrix is noticable. So it's not that there's a "problem" with the current method, they're just pondering whether they can squeeze better performance out of it by making the tradeoff. -- bioster (via gimpusers.com) _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
