Well I kind of answered my question .. what all our example optimisations have in common is lack of transparency.
Our fallback solution is similar to this snippet - http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.swt.git/tree/examples/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet156.java (With our solution copying three bytes over, and the above working an int at a time). I also found the following interesting example which could result in a speedup… - http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.swt.git/tree/examples/org.eclipse.swt.snippets/src/org/eclipse/swt/snippets/Snippet341.java The example is taking a buffer provided by OpenGL and setting it up for use as an ImageData. The interesting part is that this is a 32 bit depth buffer (i.e. using alpha data like we want), they manage to use the bytes directly by assigning the following PaletteData: ImageData data = new ImageData(bounds.width, bounds.height, 32, new PaletteData(0xFF000000, 0xFF0000, 0xFF00), PAD, bytes); We would still require a manual pass to extract the alpha information, but the raw bytes of our buffered image could be used as is .. resulting in a speedup. -- Jody Garnett On Friday, 15 March 2013 at 12:41 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: > I was reusing the AWTSWTImageUtils class in another project and noticed an > inconsistency. > > The createBufferedImage method consists of: > > /** Create a buffered image that can be be converted to SWTland later */ > public static BufferedImage createBufferedImage( int w, int h ) { > //AWTSWTImageUtils.checkAccess(); > return new BufferedImage(w, h, BufferedImage.TYPE_4BYTE_ABGR_PRE); > } > > > But the createImagerData method is optimised for TYPE_3BYTE_BGR. > > The consequence of this is that we are using a for loop to copy bytes over > from the BufferedImage to an SWT image one at a time. Changing over to BGR > did not actually help (the result lacked transparency and came out all > black). I had always assumed that this optimisation was intended for windows > or linux or something - but in testing today it is not used on Windows either. > > So chances are there is some performance left on the ground here we could > really use. > > Jesse do you remember if it is possible to set up a BufferedImage we can > cleanly use for ImageData? Or am I missing the point here. > > > -- > Jody Garnett >
_______________________________________________ User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig) http://udig.refractions.net http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
