RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
RGBtoHEX(r, g, b) {
return (r 16 | g 8 | b);
}
function spectre(angle) {
r = (180-angle)/180*Math.PI;
var c_r = Math.sin(r++)*127+128 16;
var c_g = Math.sin(r)*127+128 8;
var c_b = Math.cos(r--)*127+128;
return (c_r | c_g | c_b);
}
var filterArray = new Array();
//var filter:GlowFilter = new GlowFilter(color, alpha, blurX, blurY, strength,
quality, inner, knockout);
//filterArray.push(filter);
var blurX = 20;
var blurY = 20;
var quality = 2;
var filter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
filterArray.push(filter);
//
var plug = _root.createEmptyMovieClip('plug', 10);
plug._y = 200;
plug._x = 200;
createEmptyMovieClip('canvas', 200);
t = 0;
numsegs = 15;
segmentLength = 6;
drawCord = function () {
t += 2;
lw = Math.sin(t)*100;
//trace(lw);
a = 100;
//trace(a)
canvas.clear();
var col = spectre(t);
canvas.lineStyle(1, col, a);
canvas.moveTo(plug._x, plug._y);
points[0] = new Object();
points[0].x = plug._x;
points[0].y = plug._y;
var v1 = 1;
while (v1points.length-1) {
v4 = Math.atan2(points[v1].y-points[v1-1].y,
points[v1].x-points[v1-1].x);
v3 = points[v1-1].x+(segmentLength)*Math.cos(v4)*2;
v2 = points[v1-1].y+(segmentLength)*Math.sin(v4)*2;
points[v1].x = v3;
points[v1].y = v2;
canvas.lineStyle((points.length-v1)/2, col);
canvas.lineTo(v3, v2);
++v1;
}
//(points.length-v1)/2
};
var points = new Array();
var i = 0;
while (inumsegs) {
points[i] = new Object();
points[i].x=5*i, points[i].y=Math.sin(i/20);
++i;
}
//drawCord();
plug.xVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.yVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.xmax = Stage.width;
plug.xmin = 0;
plug.ymax = Stage.height;
plug.ymin = 0;
var matrixX:Number = 3;
var matrixY:Number = 3;
var matrix:Array = [1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0];
var divisor:Number = 4;
var sfilter:ConvolutionFilter = new ConvolutionFilter(matrixX, matrixY, matrix,
divisor);
/*
var blurX = 10;
var blurY = 10;
var quality = 2;
var sfilter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
*/
//
myMatrix = new Matrix();
translateMatrix = new Matrix();
degrees = 180;
radians = (degrees/180)*Math.PI;
myMatrix.rotate(radians);
translateMatrix.translate(768, 768);
myMatrix.concat(translateMatrix);
myColorTransform = new ColorTransform();
blendMode = normal;
myRectangle = new Rectangle(0, 0, 768, 768);
smooth = true;
// sfilter = new BlurFilter(5, 5, 1);
plug.onEnterFrame = function() {
rolldie = Math.random()*100;
if (rolldie97) {
this.xVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
this.yVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
}
canvas.filters = filterArray;
drawCord();
copyStage();
var nextX = this.xVel+this._x;
var nextY = this.yVel+this._y;
if (nextXthis.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.xmin) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
}
if (nextYthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYthis.ymin) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymin+(this.ymin-nextY);
}
this._x = nextX;
this._y = nextY;
onScreen.copyPixels(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, zeroPoint);
onScreen.applyFilter(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, new Point(0, 0),
sfilter);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform, blendMode,
myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
Although it may be something to do with the application of the filter
Scuse the dodgy code - WIP.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Duguid
Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows
the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive
than blurfilter?
Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter.
But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself...
Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution
filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the
same story? I
need a high performance blur operation for depth of field..
Cheers,
- Andreas
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
onScreen:BitmapData = new BitmapData(width, height, false, 0);
var zeroPoint:Point = new Point(0, 0);
var clip:MovieClip = createEmptyMovieClip(clip, 1);
clip._x = 0;
clip._y = 0;
clip.attachBitmap(onScreen, 1);
// wire the bitmap to the screen
function RGBtoHEX(r, g, b) {
return (r 16 | g 8 | b);
}
function spectre(angle) {
r = (180-angle)/180*Math.PI;
var c_r = Math.sin(r++)*127+128 16;
var c_g = Math.sin(r)*127+128 8;
var c_b = Math.cos(r--)*127+128;
return (c_r | c_g | c_b);
}
var filterArray = new Array();
//var filter:GlowFilter = new GlowFilter(color, alpha, blurX, blurY,
strength, quality, inner, knockout);
//filterArray.push(filter);
var blurX = 20;
var blurY = 20;
var quality = 2;
var filter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
filterArray.push(filter);
//
var plug = _root.createEmptyMovieClip('plug', 10);
plug._y = 200;
plug._x = 200;
createEmptyMovieClip('canvas', 200);
t = 0;
numsegs = 15;
segmentLength = 6;
drawCord = function () {
t += 2;
lw = Math.sin(t)*100;
//trace(lw);
a = 100;
//trace(a)
canvas.clear();
var col = spectre(t);
canvas.lineStyle(1, col, a);
canvas.moveTo(plug._x, plug._y);
points[0] = new Object();
points[0].x = plug._x;
points[0].y = plug._y;
var v1 = 1;
while (v1points.length-1) {
v4 = Math.atan2(points[v1].y-points[v1-1].y,
points[v1].x-points[v1-1].x);
v3 = points[v1-1].x+(segmentLength)*Math.cos(v4)*2;
v2 = points[v1-1].y+(segmentLength)*Math.sin(v4)*2;
points[v1].x = v3;
points[v1].y = v2;
canvas.lineStyle((points.length-v1)/2, col);
canvas.lineTo(v3, v2);
++v1;
}
//(points.length-v1)/2
};
var points = new Array();
var i = 0;
while (inumsegs) {
points[i] = new Object();
points[i].x=5*i, points[i].y=Math.sin(i/20);
++i;
}
//drawCord();
plug.xVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.yVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.xmax = Stage.width;
plug.xmin = 0;
plug.ymax = Stage.height;
plug.ymin = 0;
var matrixX:Number = 3;
var matrixY:Number = 3;
var matrix:Array = [1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0];
var divisor:Number = 4;
var sfilter:ConvolutionFilter = new ConvolutionFilter(matrixX, matrixY,
matrix, divisor);
/*
var blurX = 10;
var blurY = 10;
var quality = 2;
var sfilter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
*/
//
myMatrix = new Matrix();
translateMatrix = new Matrix();
degrees = 180;
radians = (degrees/180)*Math.PI;
myMatrix.rotate(radians);
translateMatrix.translate(768, 768);
myMatrix.concat(translateMatrix);
myColorTransform = new ColorTransform();
blendMode = normal;
myRectangle = new Rectangle(0, 0, 768, 768);
smooth = true;
// sfilter = new BlurFilter(5, 5, 1);
plug.onEnterFrame = function() {
rolldie = Math.random()*100;
if (rolldie97) {
this.xVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
this.yVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
}
canvas.filters = filterArray;
drawCord();
copyStage();
var nextX = this.xVel+this._x;
var nextY = this.yVel+this._y;
if (nextXthis.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.xmin) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
}
if (nextYthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYthis.ymin) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymin+(this.ymin-nextY);
}
this._x = nextX;
this._y = nextY;
onScreen.copyPixels(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, zeroPoint);
onScreen.applyFilter(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, new Point(0,
0), sfilter);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform, blendMode,
myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
Although it may be something to do with the application of the filter
Scuse the dodgy code - WIP.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Duguid
Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows
the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive
than blurfilter?
Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter.
But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself...
Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
= new Point(0, 0);
var clip:MovieClip = createEmptyMovieClip(clip, 1);
clip._x = 0;
clip._y = 0;
clip.attachBitmap(onScreen, 1);
// wire the bitmap to the screen
function RGBtoHEX(r, g, b) {
return (r 16 | g 8 | b);
}
function spectre(angle) {
r = (180-angle)/180*Math.PI;
var c_r = Math.sin(r++)*127+128 16;
var c_g = Math.sin(r)*127+128 8;
var c_b = Math.cos(r--)*127+128;
return (c_r | c_g | c_b);
}
var filterArray = new Array();
//var filter:GlowFilter = new GlowFilter(color, alpha, blurX,
blurY, strength, quality, inner, knockout);
//filterArray.push(filter);
var blurX = 20;
var blurY = 20;
var quality = 2;
var filter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
filterArray.push(filter);
//
var plug = _root.createEmptyMovieClip('plug', 10);
plug._y = 200;
plug._x = 200;
createEmptyMovieClip('canvas', 200);
t = 0;
numsegs = 15;
segmentLength = 6;
drawCord = function () {
t += 2;
lw = Math.sin(t)*100;
//trace(lw);
a = 100;
//trace(a)
canvas.clear();
var col = spectre(t);
canvas.lineStyle(1, col, a);
canvas.moveTo(plug._x, plug._y);
points[0] = new Object();
points[0].x = plug._x;
points[0].y = plug._y;
var v1 = 1;
while (v1points.length-1) {
v4 = Math.atan2(points[v1].y-points[v1-1].y, points
[v1].x-points[v1-1].x);
v3 = points[v1-1].x+(segmentLength)*Math.cos(v4)*2;
v2 = points[v1-1].y+(segmentLength)*Math.sin(v4)*2;
points[v1].x = v3;
points[v1].y = v2;
canvas.lineStyle((points.length-v1)/2, col);
canvas.lineTo(v3, v2);
++v1;
}
//(points.length-v1)/2
};
var points = new Array();
var i = 0;
while (inumsegs) {
points[i] = new Object();
points[i].x=5*i, points[i].y=Math.sin(i/20);
++i;
}
//drawCord();
plug.xVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.yVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.xmax = Stage.width;
plug.xmin = 0;
plug.ymax = Stage.height;
plug.ymin = 0;
var matrixX:Number = 3;
var matrixY:Number = 3;
var matrix:Array = [1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0];
var divisor:Number = 4;
var sfilter:ConvolutionFilter = new ConvolutionFilter(matrixX,
matrixY, matrix, divisor);
/*
var blurX = 10;
var blurY = 10;
var quality = 2;
var sfilter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
*/
//
myMatrix = new Matrix();
translateMatrix = new Matrix();
degrees = 180;
radians = (degrees/180)*Math.PI;
myMatrix.rotate(radians);
translateMatrix.translate(768, 768);
myMatrix.concat(translateMatrix);
myColorTransform = new ColorTransform();
blendMode = normal;
myRectangle = new Rectangle(0, 0, 768, 768);
smooth = true;
// sfilter = new BlurFilter(5, 5, 1);
plug.onEnterFrame = function() {
rolldie = Math.random()*100;
if (rolldie97) {
this.xVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
this.yVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
}
canvas.filters = filterArray;
drawCord();
copyStage();
var nextX = this.xVel+this._x;
var nextY = this.yVel+this._y;
if (nextXthis.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.xmin) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
}
if (nextYthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYthis.ymin) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymin+(this.ymin-nextY);
}
this._x = nextX;
this._y = nextY;
onScreen.copyPixels(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle,
zeroPoint);
onScreen.applyFilter(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, new
Point(0, 0), sfilter);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform,
blendMode, myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
Although it may be something to do with the application of the
filter
Scuse the dodgy code - WIP.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Duguid
Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows
the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive
than blurfilter?
Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter.
But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself...
Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution
filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the
same story? I
need a high performance blur operation for depth of field..
Cheers,
- Andreas
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
, 0);
var clip:MovieClip = createEmptyMovieClip(clip, 1);
clip._x = 0;
clip._y = 0;
clip.attachBitmap(onScreen, 1);
// wire the bitmap to the screen
function RGBtoHEX(r, g, b) {
return (r 16 | g 8 | b);
}
function spectre(angle) {
r = (180-angle)/180*Math.PI;
var c_r = Math.sin(r++)*127+128 16;
var c_g = Math.sin(r)*127+128 8;
var c_b = Math.cos(r--)*127+128;
return (c_r | c_g | c_b);
}
var filterArray = new Array();
//var filter:GlowFilter = new GlowFilter(color, alpha, blurX,
blurY, strength, quality, inner, knockout);
//filterArray.push(filter);
var blurX = 20;
var blurY = 20;
var quality = 2;
var filter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
filterArray.push(filter);
//
var plug = _root.createEmptyMovieClip('plug', 10);
plug._y = 200;
plug._x = 200;
createEmptyMovieClip('canvas', 200);
t = 0;
numsegs = 15;
segmentLength = 6;
drawCord = function () {
t += 2;
lw = Math.sin(t)*100;
//trace(lw);
a = 100;
//trace(a)
canvas.clear();
var col = spectre(t);
canvas.lineStyle(1, col, a);
canvas.moveTo(plug._x, plug._y);
points[0] = new Object();
points[0].x = plug._x;
points[0].y = plug._y;
var v1 = 1;
while (v1points.length-1) {
v4 = Math.atan2(points[v1].y-points[v1-1].y, points
[v1].x-points[v1-1].x);
v3 = points[v1-1].x+(segmentLength)*Math.cos(v4)*2;
v2 = points[v1-1].y+(segmentLength)*Math.sin(v4)*2;
points[v1].x = v3;
points[v1].y = v2;
canvas.lineStyle((points.length-v1)/2, col);
canvas.lineTo(v3, v2);
++v1;
}
//(points.length-v1)/2
};
var points = new Array();
var i = 0;
while (inumsegs) {
points[i] = new Object();
points[i].x=5*i, points[i].y=Math.sin(i/20);
++i;
}
//drawCord();
plug.xVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.yVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.xmax = Stage.width;
plug.xmin = 0;
plug.ymax = Stage.height;
plug.ymin = 0;
var matrixX:Number = 3;
var matrixY:Number = 3;
var matrix:Array = [1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0];
var divisor:Number = 4;
var sfilter:ConvolutionFilter = new ConvolutionFilter(matrixX,
matrixY, matrix, divisor);
/*
var blurX = 10;
var blurY = 10;
var quality = 2;
var sfilter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
*/
//
myMatrix = new Matrix();
translateMatrix = new Matrix();
degrees = 180;
radians = (degrees/180)*Math.PI;
myMatrix.rotate(radians);
translateMatrix.translate(768, 768);
myMatrix.concat(translateMatrix);
myColorTransform = new ColorTransform();
blendMode = normal;
myRectangle = new Rectangle(0, 0, 768, 768);
smooth = true;
// sfilter = new BlurFilter(5, 5, 1);
plug.onEnterFrame = function() {
rolldie = Math.random()*100;
if (rolldie97) {
this.xVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
this.yVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
}
canvas.filters = filterArray;
drawCord();
copyStage();
var nextX = this.xVel+this._x;
var nextY = this.yVel+this._y;
if (nextXthis.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.xmin) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
}
if (nextYthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYthis.ymin) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymin+(this.ymin-nextY);
}
this._x = nextX;
this._y = nextY;
onScreen.copyPixels(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle,
zeroPoint);
onScreen.applyFilter(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, new
Point(0, 0), sfilter);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform,
blendMode, myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
Although it may be something to do with the application of the
filter
Scuse the dodgy code - WIP.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Duguid
Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows
the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive
than blurfilter?
Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter.
But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself...
Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution
filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the
same story? I
need a high performance blur operation for depth of field..
Cheers,
- Andreas
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Interesting, it runs like a dog with blur filter on mine, fast and sweet as pie (a bit 'shaky' but not enough to be a problem) with convolution on my PC. You PC or Mac? M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cédric Muller Sent: 31 January 2006 09:43 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance ??? blurFilter=very smooth convultionFilter=shaky and unstable ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Duguid Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive than blurfilter? Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter. But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself... Andreas R�nning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. Cheers, - Andreas ___ 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 -- -- -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ 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 -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform,
blendMode, myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
With convolution filter:
[as]
import flash.filters.*;
import flash.geom.*;
import flash.display.*;
//
//import flash.display.Bitmap;
var width:Number = 768;
var height:Number = 768;
var offScreen1:BitmapData = new BitmapData(width, height, false,
0);
var onScreen:BitmapData = new BitmapData(width, height, false, 0);
var zeroPoint:Point = new Point(0, 0);
var clip:MovieClip = createEmptyMovieClip(clip, 1);
clip._x = 0;
clip._y = 0;
clip.attachBitmap(onScreen, 1);
// wire the bitmap to the screen
function RGBtoHEX(r, g, b) {
return (r 16 | g 8 | b);
}
function spectre(angle) {
r = (180-angle)/180*Math.PI;
var c_r = Math.sin(r++)*127+128 16;
var c_g = Math.sin(r)*127+128 8;
var c_b = Math.cos(r--)*127+128;
return (c_r | c_g | c_b);
}
var filterArray = new Array();
//var filter:GlowFilter = new GlowFilter(color, alpha, blurX,
blurY, strength, quality, inner, knockout);
//filterArray.push(filter);
var blurX = 20;
var blurY = 20;
var quality = 2;
var filter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
filterArray.push(filter);
//
var plug = _root.createEmptyMovieClip('plug', 10);
plug._y = 200;
plug._x = 200;
createEmptyMovieClip('canvas', 200);
t = 0;
numsegs = 15;
segmentLength = 6;
drawCord = function () {
t += 2;
lw = Math.sin(t)*100;
//trace(lw);
a = 100;
//trace(a)
canvas.clear();
var col = spectre(t);
canvas.lineStyle(1, col, a);
canvas.moveTo(plug._x, plug._y);
points[0] = new Object();
points[0].x = plug._x;
points[0].y = plug._y;
var v1 = 1;
while (v1points.length-1) {
v4 = Math.atan2(points[v1].y-points[v1-1].y, points
[v1].x-points[v1-1].x);
v3 = points[v1-1].x+(segmentLength)*Math.cos(v4)*2;
v2 = points[v1-1].y+(segmentLength)*Math.sin(v4)*2;
points[v1].x = v3;
points[v1].y = v2;
canvas.lineStyle((points.length-v1)/2, col);
canvas.lineTo(v3, v2);
++v1;
}
//(points.length-v1)/2
};
var points = new Array();
var i = 0;
while (inumsegs) {
points[i] = new Object();
points[i].x=5*i, points[i].y=Math.sin(i/20);
++i;
}
//drawCord();
plug.xVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.yVel = 10+Math.random()*10;
plug.xmax = Stage.width;
plug.xmin = 0;
plug.ymax = Stage.height;
plug.ymin = 0;
var matrixX:Number = 3;
var matrixY:Number = 3;
var matrix:Array = [1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0];
var divisor:Number = 4;
var sfilter:ConvolutionFilter = new ConvolutionFilter(matrixX,
matrixY, matrix, divisor);
/*
var blurX = 10;
var blurY = 10;
var quality = 2;
var sfilter = new BlurFilter(blurX, blurY, quality);
*/
//
myMatrix = new Matrix();
translateMatrix = new Matrix();
degrees = 180;
radians = (degrees/180)*Math.PI;
myMatrix.rotate(radians);
translateMatrix.translate(768, 768);
myMatrix.concat(translateMatrix);
myColorTransform = new ColorTransform();
blendMode = normal;
myRectangle = new Rectangle(0, 0, 768, 768);
smooth = true;
// sfilter = new BlurFilter(5, 5, 1);
plug.onEnterFrame = function() {
rolldie = Math.random()*100;
if (rolldie97) {
this.xVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
this.yVel = -10+Math.random()*20;
}
canvas.filters = filterArray;
drawCord();
copyStage();
var nextX = this.xVel+this._x;
var nextY = this.yVel+this._y;
if (nextXthis.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.xmin) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
}
if (nextYthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYthis.ymin) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymin+(this.ymin-nextY);
}
this._x = nextX;
this._y = nextY;
onScreen.copyPixels(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle,
zeroPoint);
onScreen.applyFilter(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, new
Point(0, 0), sfilter);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform,
blendMode, myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
Although it may be something to do with the application of the
filter
Scuse the dodgy code - WIP.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Duguid
Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows
the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive
than blurfilter?
Mike Mountain [EMAIL
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive than blurfilter? Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter. But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself... Andreas R�nning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. Cheers, - Andreas ___ 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 -- --- --- --- --- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ 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 -- - - --- Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYthis.ymin) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymin+(this.ymin-nextY);
}
this._x = nextX;
this._y = nextY;
onScreen.copyPixels(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle,
zeroPoint);
onScreen.applyFilter(offScreen1, offScreen1.rectangle, new
Point(0, 0), sfilter);
offScreen1.draw(_root, myMatrix, myColorTransform,
blendMode, myRectangle, smooth);
};
[/as]
Although it may be something to do with the application of the
filter
Scuse the dodgy code - WIP.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mike Duguid
Sent: 30 January 2006 22:44
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows
the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive
than blurfilter?
Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a
blurfilter.
But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself...
Andreas R�nning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass
convolution
filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the
same story? I
need a high performance blur operation for depth of field..
Cheers,
- Andreas
___
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
--
---
---
---
---
-
Franto
http://blog.franto.com
http://www.flashcoders.sk
___
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
--
-
-
---
Franto
http://blog.franto.com
http://www.flashcoders.sk
___
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
--
-
Franto
http://blog.franto.com
http://www.flashcoders.sk
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
in IE convo is still faster - not got firefox at work so can't test. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of franto Sent: 31 January 2006 10:35 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance in your performance test in Firefox, all seems same for me, little bit blur has slower but CPU usage on blur: 38-40 % on convo: 34 - 38% my previous tests was in Flash IDE ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
I definitely get better performance out of Convo rather than Blur in both Firefox and IE on Win XP. Cheers, Ian On 1/31/06, franto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in your performance test in Firefox, all seems same for me, little bit blur has slower but CPU usage on blur: 38-40 % on convo: 34 - 38% my previous tests was in Flash IDE ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
I notice between lines 29 33 of your convolution version you have pushed a blurFilter into the filterArray - if you remove this from both versions and rely on convolution purely for blurring, as you can observe the effect isn't as pronounced as directly applying a blurFilter - to get an effective blur from a single iteration of a convolution matrix I've found requires a 5x5 matrix or alternatively use multiple iterations which may negate any cpu advantage that a single 3x3 convolution matrix application has? On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like: Convolution = better on PC Blur = better on mac Oh joy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cédric Muller Sent: 31 January 2006 09:44 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance I am using Flash 8 on OS X 10.4 ?? really strange ... ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
I notice between lines 29 33 of your convolution version you have pushed a blurFilter into the filterArray It's blurring the individual item - the second time around blurs the entire canvas. This still means Blur + blur = slow on Pc/ fast on mac blur + convo slow on mac/fast on PC - if you remove this from both versions and rely on convolution purely for blurring, as you can observe the effect isn't as pronounced But there's still a performance difference - which is platform dependant, which to me is an issue. as directly applying a blurFilter - to get an effective blur from a single iteration of a convolution matrix I've found requires a 5x5 matrix or alternatively use multiple iterations which may negate any cpu advantage that a single 3x3 convolution matrix application has? Go for it - obviously you'd use the best technique in order to achieve the effect you desire. Like I say this code is WIP but I thought it demonstrates the differences quite effectively. M ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
I am still puzzled about that thing ... (unbalanced results on PC vs MAC) ... I notice between lines 29 33 of your convolution version you have pushed a blurFilter into the filterArray It's blurring the individual item - the second time around blurs the entire canvas. This still means Blur + blur = slow on Pc/ fast on mac blur + convo slow on mac/fast on PC - if you remove this from both versions and rely on convolution purely for blurring, as you can observe the effect isn't as pronounced But there's still a performance difference - which is platform dependant, which to me is an issue. as directly applying a blurFilter - to get an effective blur from a single iteration of a convolution matrix I've found requires a 5x5 matrix or alternatively use multiple iterations which may negate any cpu advantage that a single 3x3 convolution matrix application has? Go for it - obviously you'd use the best technique in order to achieve the effect you desire. Like I say this code is WIP but I thought it demonstrates the differences quite effectively. M ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
nice example :)) maybe let the result textfield editable, to be able past results ;) blur: 12740 convo3x3 : 9092 convo5x5: 36517 uff no filter: 5634 it's very interesting topic, i will post in on my blog to have more results... can I? On 1/31/06, Mike Duguid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. On 1/30/06, Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
In that test the convolution filter came out marginally faster than no filters at all! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Duguid Sent: 31 January 2006 13:05 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Are these just the filters applied to a stright MC? It'd be interesting to see the same thing done double buffered - with the filters being applied to the bitmapdata before it is drawn back. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Duguid Sent: 31 January 2006 13:05 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. On 1/30/06, Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
but not on PC :)) On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that test the convolution filter came out marginally faster than no filters at all! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Duguid Sent: 31 January 2006 13:05 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
and i got 2.8Ghx, 512MB Ram PC :) On 1/31/06, franto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but not on PC :)) On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that test the convolution filter came out marginally faster than no filters at all! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Duguid Sent: 31 January 2006 13:05 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Yes - on my PC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of franto Sent: 31 January 2006 13:21 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance but not on PC :)) On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that test the convolution filter came out marginally faster than no filters at all! ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
just applied directly to mc. whoops there was a bug in there too, I've added the fla to the page if anybody wants to muck about with it Are these just the filters applied to a stright MC? It'd be interesting to see the same thing done double buffered - with the filters being applied to the bitmapdata before it is drawn back. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
so, please wrote the times, its really strange On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - on my PC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of franto Sent: 31 January 2006 13:21 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance but not on PC :)) On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that test the convolution filter came out marginally faster than no filters at all! ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
so, please wrote the times, its really strange Blur: 5622 Conv 3x3: 5625 Conv 5x5: 14453 None: 5640 ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
Firefox: blurFilter blur v convolution blur blur filter time : 9382 convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 8037 convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 36431 no filter : 5637 IE: blurFilter blur v convolution blur blur filter time : 5771 convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 5625 convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 31900 no filter : 5648 Flash IDE (120 FPS): blurFilter blur v convolution blur blur filter time : 4849 convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 3556 convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 32154 no filter : 2909 Flash IDE (30 FPS): blurFilter blur v convolution blur blur filter time : 12129 convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 12139 convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 32906 no filter : 1216 On 1/31/06, franto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, please wrote the times, its really strange On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes - on my PC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of franto Sent: 31 January 2006 13:21 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance but not on PC :)) On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that test the convolution filter came out marginally faster than no filters at all! ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
ok, thanks Conclusion: convolution filters plainly DON'T WORK on macs ... (dualcore 2ghz!) I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. On 1/30/06, Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
blur filter time : 7295 convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 31391 convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 56559 no filter : 7265 Mac OS 10.4.4 DualCore G5 2x2Ghz :-)) so shitty I have now have to go for a sleep ... or book a room in a sanatorium oh oh you want a scoop ? Flash is no more ubiquitous ;) of course, this has to do with hardware acceleration AND decceleration nice example :)) maybe let the result textfield editable, to be able past results ;) blur: 12740 convo3x3 : 9092 convo5x5: 36517 uff no filter: 5634 it's very interesting topic, i will post in on my blog to have more results... can I? On 1/31/06, Mike Duguid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've stuck another example here: http://www.flashcool.com/blur.html On the pc, as Mike said, convolution is faster, but if you need more than a subtle blur may not be what's required. On 1/30/06, Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders -- -- -- - Franto http://blog.franto.com http://www.flashcoders.sk ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
Hrm. I get: blur filter time : 11032 convolution 3x3: 10144 convolution 5x5: 37781 no filter : 7510 Win XP, 3GHz, 512MB RAM I wonder if it's a graphics card/hardware acceleration thing. (I have a rubbish graphics card.) Ian On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, please wrote the times, its really strange Blur: 5622 Conv 3x3: 5625 Conv 5x5: 14453 None: 5640 ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
Blur: 5944 convolution 3x3: 5641 convolution 5x5: 29932 no filter: 5646 also Win XP, 3GHz (northwood), 512MB RAM - intel 915 GAV motherboard w/built in crap vga -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Ian Thomas Verzonden: dinsdag 31 januari 2006 14:48 Aan: Flashcoders mailing list Onderwerp: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance Hrm. I get: blur filter time : 11032 convolution 3x3: 10144 convolution 5x5: 37781 no filter : 7510 Win XP, 3GHz, 512MB RAM I wonder if it's a graphics card/hardware acceleration thing. (I have a rubbish graphics card.) Ian On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, please wrote the times, its really strange Blur: 5622 Conv 3x3: 5625 Conv 5x5: 14453 None: 5640 ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
powerbook 15, 1.25 GHz, 1GB RAM: blur filter: 13 745 convolution 3x3: 44 437 convolution 5x5 : 119 497 no filter : 7 216 kalle On 1/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blur: 5944 convolution 3x3: 5641 convolution 5x5: 29932 no filter: 5646 also Win XP, 3GHz (northwood), 512MB RAM - intel 915 GAV motherboard w/built in crap vga -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Ian Thomas Verzonden: dinsdag 31 januari 2006 14:48 Aan: Flashcoders mailing list Onderwerp: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance Hrm. I get: blur filter time : 11032 convolution 3x3: 10144 convolution 5x5: 37781 no filter : 7510 Win XP, 3GHz, 512MB RAM I wonder if it's a graphics card/hardware acceleration thing. (I have a rubbish graphics card.) Ian On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, please wrote the times, its really strange Blur: 5622 Conv 3x3: 5625 Conv 5x5: 14453 None: 5640 ___ 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 -- inlovewith.com inlovewith ltd. kalle thyselius linnégatan 76, stockholm, sweden + 46 707 602 600 inlovewith you ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
win xp amd sempron 3100+ 1.8ghz 960MB ram crappy integrated gfx card -- firefox FP8 blur : 9720 convolution 3x3 : 8836 convolution 5x5 : 38737 no filter : 5372 -- IE FP 8.5 blur : 5965 convolution 3x3 : 5704 convolution 5x5 : 39783 no filter : 5717 On 1/31/06, Kalle Thyselius, inlovewith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: powerbook 15, 1.25 GHz, 1GB RAM: blur filter: 13 745 convolution 3x3: 44 437 convolution 5x5 : 119 497 no filter : 7 216 kalle On 1/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blur: 5944 convolution 3x3: 5641 convolution 5x5: 29932 no filter: 5646 also Win XP, 3GHz (northwood), 512MB RAM - intel 915 GAV motherboard w/built in crap vga -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Ian Thomas Verzonden: dinsdag 31 januari 2006 14:48 Aan: Flashcoders mailing list Onderwerp: Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance Hrm. I get: blur filter time : 11032 convolution 3x3: 10144 convolution 5x5: 37781 no filter : 7510 Win XP, 3GHz, 512MB RAM I wonder if it's a graphics card/hardware acceleration thing. (I have a rubbish graphics card.) Ian On 1/31/06, Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, please wrote the times, its really strange Blur: 5622 Conv 3x3: 5625 Conv 5x5: 14453 None: 5640 ___ 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 -- inlovewith.com inlovewith ltd. kalle thyselius linnégatan 76, stockholm, sweden + 46 707 602 600 inlovewith you ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike Mountain wrote: In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter. But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself... Of course you could use the ConvolutionFilter on the pc, and BlurFilter on the mac by using: System.capabilities.os ;=) Anyway on my computer the BlurFilter looks better quality-wise then the ConvolutionFilter version. Anyway where can I find the flash movie with the timing? ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
In both IE and Firefox the convultion filter is much quicker. I had a strange experience with this, in the Flash IDE test that I made, the blurFilter was VERY slow, however, when I hold on to the window, the filter begins processing quicker. When I right click on the window, the same happens. these are my results for Duguids code: Windows XP SP2 2 gigs of ram @ 2Ghz blurFilter blur v convolution blur blur filter time : 8825 convolution 3x3 (not very blurry though) : 7519 convolution 5x5 (more blurry but still not very) : 32372 no filter : 5636 Could it maybe have to do with the OSX superior UI rendering capabilities? M. On 1/31/06, Weyert de Boer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Mountain wrote: In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter. But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself... Of course you could use the ConvolutionFilter on the pc, and BlurFilter on the mac by using: System.capabilities.os ;=) Anyway on my computer the BlurFilter looks better quality-wise then the ConvolutionFilter version. Anyway where can I find the flash movie with the timing? ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. Cheers, - Andreas ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter. But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Rønning Sent: 30 January 2006 10:03 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. Cheers, - Andreas ___ 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] ConvolutionFilter performance
Mike, do you have an example of this? My current test shows the opposite - that convolution is proving more cpu intensive than blurfilter? Mike Mountain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my tests convolution filter was much faster than a blurfilter. But it's an easy one to swap oout and test for yourself... Andreas Rønning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone know which is faster; a blurring one-pass convolution filter or a blurfilter? Or are they just 2 sides to the same story? I need a high performance blur operation for depth of field.. Cheers, - Andreas ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
