Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Re: Re: Blur plug-in
On 07.06.2004, at 20:04, William Skaggs wrote: The main reason not to use convmatrix is that internally it always does a 5x5 convolution, regardless of the matrix entries. This means it should take almost three times as long as the 3x3 convolution in blur.c; in fact, a little testing on a 5000 x 1 image shows it taking over four times as long. Otherwise using convmatrix would probably be the right solution. I agree with Sven here that convolution should be done by the core (probably even support SIMD, where available) and be usable for all plugins and integrated tools. IMHO it would also make sense to offer special functions which allow for 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 and maybe also generic sizes of matrices for optimum speed and cache utilization. Servus, Daniel PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Re: Re: Blur plug-in
On 7 Jun 2004, Sven Neumann wrote: Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix? I'd call it a waste of resources. Actually such a simple task as applying a convolution kernel should probably be done completely in the core. *chuckles* I agree. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Re: Re: Blur plug-in
GSR - FR wrote: Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix? The main reason not to use convmatrix is that internally it always does a 5x5 convolution, regardless of the matrix entries. This means it should take almost three times as long as the 3x3 convolution in blur.c; in fact, a little testing on a 5000 x 1 image shows it taking over four times as long. Otherwise using convmatrix would probably be the right solution. Best, -- Bill __ __ __ __ Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Re: Re: Blur plug-in
Hi, GSR - FR [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-06-07 at 1759.17 +0200): calling the convolution matrix plug in and scripts to preset it a simple replacement ? Well, what would you call a script that just puts a menu entry and calls convolution matrix with a fixed matrix? I'd call it a waste of resources. Actually such a simple task as applying a convolution kernel should probably be done completely in the core. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
