I would personally be very very surprised if using a texture as a LUT
was not more efficient than a calculation, but I am hardly a GPU
expert. Suffice it to say, LUTs are generally a very well known and
widely used optimization technique, so my gut says, if you need more
speed, go with a LUT, but why not just benchmark it and let us all
know :) ?
On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:20 AM, Stephanie Giovannini wrote:
I was referring to the programmatic implementation of a step-
function. The step function could be used instead of the gradient
image lookup. I don't know what is faster - looking up the "solved"
function in and image or calculating the function itself.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Quartzcomposer-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quartzcomposer-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
