Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
Hi Stevensacks,
I ended up at your site through the flashcoders-list.
As I do enjoy having an efficient workflow, or wish that I have - I got
your jsfl-scripts.
but I wonder why you, as you are a coder want the same name of
the libraryitem also on the instance - since one libraryitem can
be having mutiple instances.
This is what I have done (having two input alerts):
if (fl.getDocumentDOM().selection.length > 0)
{
var libraryName = prompt("Library Name", "");
var mcName = prompt("MC Name", "");
if(mcName == "") mcName = libraryName;
if (libraryName != null)
{
var newMc = fl.getDocumentDOM().convertToSymbol("movie
clip", libraryName, "top left");
fl.getDocumentDOM().selection[0].name = mcName;
fl.getDocumentDOM().enterEditMode("inPlace");
var tl = fl.getDocumentDOM().getTimeline();
tl.insertFrames(2);
tl.convertToKeyframes(0, 2);
tl.addNewLayer("LABELS");
tl.convertToKeyframes(0, 2);
tl.layers[tl.currentLayer].frames[0].name = "_up";
tl.layers[tl.currentLayer].frames[1].name = "_over";
tl.layers[tl.currentLayer].frames[2].name = "_down";
tl.addNewLayer("AS");
tl.layers[tl.currentLayer].frames[0].actionScript =
"stop();n";
fl.getDocumentDOM().exitEditMode();
}
}
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
If you import a large PNG with no alpha you will have slower frame rates than importing the same images as a JPG even at 100% compression, regardless of the Flash export settings for that image. You could set the PNG to export as an 80% JPG and it will still perform worse than if you imported a 100% JPG to begin with. The hows and whys are interesting to know, but irrelevant. Your animations will slow down if Flash has to deal with a larger source file. I've done my own testing and have proven it to be true. Since I can't depend on the end user having a great video card, it's more important to maximize performance across the board by importing 100% JPGs when transparent PNGs are not necessary. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
Thankyou this was the reply I wanted. Elia - Original Message - From: "Kerry Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Flash Coders List'" Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:11 AM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance Steven Sacks wrote: Common sense dictates that a 32 bit pixel takes more rendering computation than a 16 bit pixel or an 8 bit pixel. The 32-bit pixel includes an 8-bit alpha channel, and that in itself takes more rendering time. Your graphics card actually has more impact on rendering time than the color depth. All modern graphics cards do the rendering in hardware, of course, though that wasn't always the case. I did some benchmarking while I was working at Disney, and we found that 24-bit graphics actually rendered faster than 16-bit. The underlying reason is simple--with 24 bits, each byte represents a color (red, green, or blue), and it's easy for the firmware on the graphics card to work with a straightforward 3 bytes. 16-bit graphics are another story. You still have to represent red, green, and blue. Basic math tells you that each color gets 5 bits--but what do you do with the other bit? A 1-bit alpha channel? Ignore it? Do 6-5-5, or 5-6-5? Different manufacturers, and different systems, treat it differently. Down on the hardware level, the 16-bit graphic presents other challenges. You have to take the 16-bit word and peel off the relevant bits, and pop them into the byte-size registers. If you're familiar with Assembly language, you know that involves a lot of ROR, SHL, and the like. It happens in hardware (actually firmware), so it's pretty fast, but the 24-bit graphics are still easier to handle. As far as 8-bit graphics, they are really just 24-bit graphics with a limited range of colors (the palette). Instead of representing an actual color, each byte is an index into a palette, so there's an additional step there that must be performed during rendering. It's not so simple after all. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
Steven Sacks wrote: > Common sense dictates that a 32 bit pixel takes more rendering > computation than a 16 bit pixel or an 8 bit pixel. The 32-bit pixel includes an 8-bit alpha channel, and that in itself takes more rendering time. Your graphics card actually has more impact on rendering time than the color depth. All modern graphics cards do the rendering in hardware, of course, though that wasn't always the case. I did some benchmarking while I was working at Disney, and we found that 24-bit graphics actually rendered faster than 16-bit. The underlying reason is simple--with 24 bits, each byte represents a color (red, green, or blue), and it's easy for the firmware on the graphics card to work with a straightforward 3 bytes. 16-bit graphics are another story. You still have to represent red, green, and blue. Basic math tells you that each color gets 5 bits--but what do you do with the other bit? A 1-bit alpha channel? Ignore it? Do 6-5-5, or 5-6-5? Different manufacturers, and different systems, treat it differently. Down on the hardware level, the 16-bit graphic presents other challenges. You have to take the 16-bit word and peel off the relevant bits, and pop them into the byte-size registers. If you're familiar with Assembly language, you know that involves a lot of ROR, SHL, and the like. It happens in hardware (actually firmware), so it's pretty fast, but the 24-bit graphics are still easier to handle. As far as 8-bit graphics, they are really just 24-bit graphics with a limited range of colors (the palette). Instead of representing an actual color, each byte is an index into a palette, so there's an additional step there that must be performed during rendering. It's not so simple after all. Cordially, Kerry Thompson ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
Common sense dictates that a 32 bit pixel takes more rendering computation than a 16 bit pixel or an 8 bit pixel. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
Yes, they are faster or yes Flash auto-converts them to 16-bit? :) Elia - Original Message - From: "Steven Sacks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flash Coders List" Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance Yes. Elia Morling wrote: Does the bit-rate used in images affect flash frame rate? For examples are 8-bit images faster or will Flash auto-convert them to 16-bit when rendering to the screen. Thanks Elia Morling ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] Framerate performance
Yes. Elia Morling wrote: Does the bit-rate used in images affect flash frame rate? For examples are 8-bit images faster or will Flash auto-convert them to 16-bit when rendering to the screen. Thanks Elia Morling ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
