On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:17:18 -0400 Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
(B
(B> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:59:19AM +1000, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
(B> > to the best of my knowledge, no. i remember it being discussed, but keith
(B> > was very particular on a client being able to depend on the exact output of
(B> > render so software and hardware/render routines could match. i can't find
(B> > anything in the api that seems to indicate that you can hint saying "ok - no
(B> > need to be exact. close enough is good enough" unless you mean the scaling
(B> > filters (which have generic names like "fast" "good" "best" as well as
(B> > "bilienar" and"nearest"), but that's about it.
(B>
(B> Reading the spec, what I'm thinking of is Precise vs. Imprecise
(B> polygon mode.
(B>
(B> When rasterized in Precise mode, the pixelization will match this
(B> specification exactly.
(B>
(B
(B> When rasterized in Imprecise mode, the pixelization may deviate
(B> from this specification by up to 1/2 pixel along any edge subject
(B> to the following constraints: ...
(B>
(B> etc. I guess you are talking about image operations though so
(B> nevermind. ;-)
(B>
(B> The "Fast", "Good", and "Best" filter aliases as you say do seem to
(B> allow pretty much any filter routine you want, at least.
(B
(Byup. but i think this was only intended for scaling, though i'm not certain. it
(Bmay also apply for blending etc. but at this stage good & best map to bilinear.
(Bfast maps to nearest as best i can tell.
(B
(B
(B--
(B--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
(BThe Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$B7'<*(B - $Bhttp://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
