Marc Lehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I really don't agree with you on the speed issue. data is most often
> processed by tile, in which case the program will find an almost ideal
> situation, memory and cache-wise.

If it's not the tile architecture that's causing the inefficiencies,
then what is? I'm just curious as to what the Gimp is doing with all
the CPU cycles.

I tried some brightness/contrast changes on a largish image and the
speed was one update per 6 seconds (everything was done in memory, no
disk activity). My own software gives 3 updates per seconds (18x
faster) and I believe Photoshop gives a similar speed. So this sort of
basic functionality seems to be implemented quite inefficient on the

For the less basic functionality like the unsharp mask plugin, the
story is much worse.

  --  Ewald

Reply via email to