On 07.06.2004, at 20:04, William Skaggs wrote:
The main reason not to use convmatrix is that internally it always does a 5x5 convolution, regardless of the matrix entries. This means it should take almost three times as long as the 3x3 convolution in blur.c; in fact, a little testing on a 5000 x 10000 image shows it taking over four times as long. Otherwise using convmatrix would probably be the right solution.
I agree with Sven here that convolution should be done by the core (probably even support SIMD, where available) and be usable for all plugins and integrated tools. IMHO it would also make sense to offer special functions which allow for 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 and maybe also generic sizes of matrices for optimum speed and cache utilization.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part