On 28.1.2016 at 10:29 PM Daniel Rogers wrote: > Hi Sven, > > I am confused. What technical reason exists to assume gegl cannot be as > fast as vips? Is it memory usage? Extra necessary calculations? Some way > in which parallelism is not as possible?
Hi Daniel, you might have misunderstood me. The performance comparison only shows that VIPS outperforms GEGL at least in this test. Technical reasons can be found here: http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=Speed_and_Memory_Use In a mail John explained the differences to me: "Gegl is really targeting interactive applications, not batch processing, and it's doing a lot of work that no one else is doing, like conversion to scRGB, transparency, caching, and so on." I didn't claim that GEGL couldn't be as fast as VIPS. It might be much faster as now by using VIPS as library. This is why there is gegl-vips, a VIPS-based GEGL back-end. You'll find some more information when digging this list for VIPS, mails from John Cupitt and Nicolas Robidoux or GEGL's performance in general. Greetings Sven _______________________________________________ gegl-developer-list mailing list List address: email@example.com List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list