blur filter time : 7295
convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 31391
convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 56559
no filter : 7265
Mac OS 10.4.4
DualCore G5 2x2Ghz
:-))
so shitty I have now have to go for a sleep ... or book a room in a
sanatorium
oh oh
you want a scoop ?
Flash is no more ubiquitous ;)
of course, this has to do with hardware acceleration AND decceleration
nice example :)) maybe let the result textfield editable, to be able
past results ;)
blur: 12740
convo3x3 : 9092
convo5x5: 36517 uff
no filter: 5634
it's very interesting topic, i will post in on my blog to have more
results...
can I?
On 1/31/06, Mike Duguid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html
On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more
than a subtle blur may not be what's required.
On 1/30/06, Andreas Rønning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution
filter
or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I
need a
high performance blur operation for depth of field..
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Franto
http://blog.franto.com
http://www.flashcoders.sk
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
