- 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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
]
[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
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
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
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 -
= 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
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
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
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
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
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
: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
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
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
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
: [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
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
, 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
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,
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 ?
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
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
), 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
: [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
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
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.
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
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
