Martin Nordholts schrieb:
> On 07/07/2009 01:35 PM, yahvuu wrote:
>> I see two poles for the rendering strategy, both of which have downsides:
>> - eager rendering: render as soon as possible, latest when
>>                     saving the composition
> Hi yahvuu
> I don't see why the whole composition would have to be rendered just 
> because it is saved. Or did you mean "latest when exporting the 
> composition"?

no, by eager rendering i indeed mean that the saved file contains a
rendered bitmap of full image resolution. And yes, when rendering takes
just a few seconds, this stragegy wastes disk space.

> I wonder if we really need to let the user manage this

Consider a huge panorama image with some operations like denoise
and unsharp mask applied, that takes, say 2 hours, to render.
If we go with lazy rendering, the following might happen:

The user sends a JPEG to a colleague for review -- takes 2 hours to render.
The image is OK, the user creates a TIFF for the print shop -- takes 2 hours 

I think in this case, the user would be better off if he had some
control about when the rendering happens.

I'm not shure: just a corner case or something GIMP should care about?

> wouldn't it work 
> pretty well to lazily render an area around the currently showed part of 
> the image (so that performance when scrolling in the vicinity is good), 
> but limit it in size (so that memory usage is limited).

IIUC, you're targeting quick re-opening of a composition here. Me too, thinks
that some persistent caching can be useful. Regarding image browsing, a 
plus a preview of the whole image at screen resolution might be useful, too.
However, that's different from controlling the rendering of the full resolution.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to