On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:41:57AM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>
> ---
> Daniel Oberhoff
> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 03:48:39PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Daniel Oberhoff
---
Daniel Oberhoff
daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
On Aug 20, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 03:48:39PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> Daniel Oberhoff
>> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Michael Niedermay
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 03:48:39PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>
> ---
> Daniel Oberhoff
> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:58:50PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Daniel Oberhoff
---
Daniel Oberhoff
daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
On Aug 20, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:58:50PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> Daniel Oberhoff
>> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Michael Niedermay
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:58:50PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>
> ---
> Daniel Oberhoff
> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:36:29PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Daniel Oberhoff
---
Daniel Oberhoff
daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:36:29PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> Daniel Oberhoff
>> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Michael Niedermay
---
Daniel Oberhoff
daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:42:35PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> Daniel Oberhoff
>> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Michael Niedermay
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:36:29PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>
> ---
> Daniel Oberhoff
> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:23:10PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
> >> So we prefer int64_t above floa
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:42:35PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>
> ---
> Daniel Oberhoff
> daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > The only remaining floats are in the user interface, they are left as they
> > should not cause a pro
---
Daniel Oberhoff
daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> The only remaining floats are in the user interface, they are left as they
> should not cause a problem in practice
> ---
> libavfilter/vf_lenscorrection.c | 13 +++--
> 1 file
---
Daniel Oberhoff
daniel.oberh...@gmail.com
On Aug 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:23:10PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
>> So we prefer int64_t above float32?
>
> well, its not exactly making me happy either but its just 2 32x32->64
> opera
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 02:23:10PM +0200, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
> So we prefer int64_t above float32?
well, its not exactly making me happy either but its just 2 32x32->64
operations per pixel which shouldnt be that bad when we need to do
16 multiplications for bicubic per sample
also at the exp
So we prefer int64_t above float32? I assumed we stick with 32bits for
calculations. Did you test this with very large resolutions? I so
congratulation :). I am glad I could push you to finish what I failed to do :).
As I would still like to have interpolation, I assume I shall refactor the
int
The only remaining floats are in the user interface, they are left as they
should not cause a problem in practice
---
libavfilter/vf_lenscorrection.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_lenscorrection.c b/libavfilter/vf_lenscorrection.
14 matches
Mail list logo
