Richard Gaskin wrote:

Confirmed in the IDEs -- 5740ms/avg in MC, 6830ms/avg in Rev (I have a
1GHz PB G4).

I haven't built standalones, though, which would be good to test.


In the meantime I did further tests and built standalones for MC 2.6.5, 2.73, 2.74 and Rev 2.6.1, 2.73, 2.74. I tested 3 more scripts and also tested all scripts with a much larger image of 1600 X 1200. As before, no significant differences between stacks and standalones in MC and - also as before - a slight improvement for the Rev standalones compared to the Rev stacks, but a remaining difference to the MC equivalents of up to four seconds, and even one script where Rev runs *eleven* times slower than MC! See below.

 Given this speed loss I'm confident the folks at RunRev will take a keen
interest to determine what's eating performance.

Offhand I can't imagine how the execution of a single handler with no
breaks, pauses, or sends is in any way affected by any outside script,
but it does indeed appear to be the case.

Have you BZ'd this?  It would be good to include that file as an
attachment to the report.


I might do this after some more research

-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation


and Chipp Walters (on Wed, 11 Oct 2006) wrote:

Wilhelm,

Just wondering, did you 'lock messages' before and 'unlock messages'
after when running the script? If not, you might want to try it and
see if it doesn't speed things up.


Inserting "lock messages" etc. does not change the results.
But thanks for the hint, because the fact that adding "lock messages" does not change the speed means that the long

"setProp cREVGeneral [pwhichProp] pWhichProfile" handler

(which belongs to the scripts added by the Rev Standalone Builder) cannot be the culprit. Unfortunately, all these extra scripts apparently are added by the script-protected revsaveasstandalone substack. I searched the scripts of the "StandaloneSettings" stacks and so far found nothing there that could be related to the speed difference problems.

Also, you probably want to make sure 'Variable Checking by Default" is
turned OFF in the prefs pane for RR.

Same as above, does not make any difference.

best, Chipp



Here are some results for filters applied to the larger 1600 X 1200 image (again: Windows computer with 2 GHz):

- "duplicate colors": Rev is * three seconds* slower in all the 3 stacks and standalones ( 9 vs. 12 and 10 vs. 13 seconds with different engine versions)

- "max dots" (this is a modified version of the Gimp "despeckle"-median filter, where I exchanged the median for the max values. The button is to be found in my Imagedata Toolkit below the "despeckle" filter). Rev is about 4 seconds slower here, the results being 34 seconds for MC and 38.5 for Rev on the average.

I then happened to notice that the reset button worked considerably slower in Rev, eleven times slower, and I measured this.

The script of  the reset button is a one-liner

"set the imagedata of img 1 to decompress(the Bilddaten of me)" -- ("Bilddaten" being a translation of imagedata).

This takes 270 milliseconds in MC and 3000 milliseconds in Rev with all engine versions and identical in stacks and standalones.

I removed "compress" for setting the custom property and "decompress" then in the reset handler, which didn't make much of a difference: Rev is now only 10 times slower.--

Anyway, after the "compress-decompress-reset" tests, I made some progress in detecting what is involved in producing the speed-difference problems. Instead of the image I placed a field with a longer text on the card, which then was saved as a custom property of the reset button. Resetting the text of the field is indeed identical in all Rev and MC stacks and standalones, meaning

that the speed differences between MC and Rev are caused by a different handling of "imagedata"!

It now remains to be found out which script is responsible for this abject treatment of imagedata in Revolution, where this script is located, and how we can prevent its interference.

Best regards,

Wilhelm Sanke
<http://www.sanke.org/MetaMedia>



_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Reply via email to