No difference between native and not native CI rendering.But one thing that prevents me from using native CI is that on some CI filters the results are blocky. They look alike at original size (lets say 720x576 PAL video with a filter applied to it)
but when rendered at full screen, native CI looks ugly.
I've attached a sample composition so you can compare it.It runs the Max OS X welcome video at a low res so you can see the difference in the image quality. While disabled native rendering smoothes the edges out at non-native resolution (320x200), native rendering does not.
(best seen on glossy of the X at the end) Now some assumptions on what I think I see:So I think native CI rendering is somewhat which is intended to be applied at native pixel size as CI filters do. Disabled means that it is applied to the texture in the texture size (320x200) and the texture is rendered with bilinear filtering. Enabled means that it is applied to the screen size when playing in full screen.
That would also explain the contradictions regarding the performance.Native CI should be faster when the screen size equals the actual pixels to process by skipping the creation of a texture. And it is slower in full screen because a bigger surface has to be covered with a CI filter which is a waste of performance. Depending on the complexibility of the CI filter, disabling would provide a better performance in that case.
Hope this somehow correct.
Deinterlace.qtz
Description: application/quartzcomposer
_______________________________________________ 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]
