-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Matteo Sisti Sette wrote: > Hi, > > > When the pix_crop is set to 0,0 offset and a size equal to the input > image size, that is it is identical to no crop at all, will it consume > the same amount of CPU as a nontrivial crop?
most likely (but i don't know; every now and then there are optimizations...) i'd say: try it out :-) "nontrivial" should consume more processing power (and bus transfer) than the optimized "trivial" case. > And by the way, I suppose that (at least when the crop is actually > nontrivial) when the input image changes, performing the crop means > actually copying all the pixels within the cropped region, doesn't it? > yes. so you can perform weird stuff inline on the cropped image without affecting the original image. fg,asr IOhannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkus+MoACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQUZwCcC+l3rV6ANQE7WblzxpOOMhWr D/4AoMsXYPQwV73K97E4bg6D2AH7m3lZ =YODa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
