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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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 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 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
and blur shaky ?? in regards to Safari, I get the same results than with Flash IDE my co-worker, who has Pentium M 1.86 1 Gig Ram, cannot see a difference between both :-) I am lost... 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 ___ 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
;>>> };
> >>>>> [/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 (v1 >>>>> 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 (i >>>>> 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;
> >>>>&g
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
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 (v1v4 = 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 (i97) {
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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextY
-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
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1; nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax); } else if (nextY -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
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
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
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
lineTo(v3, v2);
> >> ++v1;
> >> }
> >> //(points.length-v1)/2
> >> };
> >> var points = new Array();
> >> var i = 0;
> >> while (i >> 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 (rolldie>97) {
> >> 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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
> >> this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> >> nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
> >> } else if (nextX >> this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> >> nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
> >> }
> >> if (nextY>this.ymax) {
> >> this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> >> nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
> >> } else if (nextY >> 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
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
((points.length-v1)/2, col);
> >> canvas.lineTo(v3, v2);
> >> ++v1;
> >> }
> >> //(points.length-v1)/2
> >> };
> >> var points = new Array();
> >> var i = 0;
> >> while (i >> 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 (rolldie>97) {
> >> 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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
> >> this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> >> nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
> >> } else if (nextX >> this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> >> nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
> >> }
> >> if (nextY>this.ymax) {
> >> this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> >> nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
> >> } else if (nextY >> 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
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
= 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 (v1v4 = 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 (ivar 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 (rolldie>97) {
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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYonScreen.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/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
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
ay.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 (v1v4 = 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 (ivar 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 (rolldie>97) {
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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextYonScreen.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/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
Re: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
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]
>
>
> 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 (v1 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 (i 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 (rolldie>97) {
> 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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
> this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
> } else if (nextX this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> nextX = this.xmin+(this.xmin-nextX);
> }
> if (nextY>this.ymax) {
> this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
> nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
>
RE: [Flashcoders] ConvolutionFilter performance
OK you'll need a movie 768x768 - copy this code on to frame 1 etc.
with blur 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 (v197) {
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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextY97) {
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 (nextX>this.xmax) {
this.xVel = (this.xVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextX = this.xmax-(nextX-this.xmax);
} else if (nextXthis.ymax) {
this.yVel = (this.yVel+Math.random()*10)*-1;
nextY = this.ymax-(nextY-this.ymax);
} else if (nextY -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/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
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
