On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 03:22:39PM -0700, Streets Of Boston wrote:
> " *But there is one big question...why does recycling the bitmaps after
> their last use still result in a force close, saying that I tried to use
> them AFTER they were recycled? *"
>
> We don't have enough of your code. But suppose you have this code executed:
Ok, here's the actual code for the exact part that WAS causing the problem:
public Bitmap mergeBitmaps(Bitmap src, Bitmap dest, int width, int height) {
Bitmap bmp1 = Bitmap.createScaledBitmap(src, width, height, false);
src.recycle() ; src = null;
Bitmap bmp2 = Bitmap.createScaledBitmap(dest, width, height, false);
dest.recycle() ; dest = null;
And then bmp1 and bmp2 were used from that point on. Note that this code
has now been deleted. I use src and dest directly. I was originally
doing resizing at the end here, but that went away, and this code was
removed (well, the bmp1 and bmp2 parts, and the two recycle()s).
After that, the question was more just to learn why it didn't work as I
thought it would. Now, I think I understand. By using bmp1 and bmp2, I
WAS still using src and dest, even though they'd been recycled ... BAM!
FORCE CLOSE.
And thank you for explaning that to me. I always thought that creating a
bitmap from another one was creating an entirely new bitmap, not still
using the old one. Now I know what not to do. :-)
Btw, just FYI, on an old (for this thread) topic: out of curiosity, I
re-read RGB_565 to find out how many thousands of colors it had, and if
I might want to go ahead and consider it after all. Then I read this
(in Bitmap.Config):
"This configuration may be useful when using opaque
bitmaps that do not require high color fidelity."
There's no way this fits into a camera app primarily geared for serious
photography, looking at adding diffusion filters to soften faces, fog
filters (you can do a LOT with a low fog, moderately deep blue filter,
and the right scene/environment), and so on. Think of it like going to
any of the planet's beautifyl natural wonders, with a camera. Which
would you rather have (and this is based on film): a point and shoot
35mm with the cheapest and crappiest film you could buy, or a Nikon F4
35mm with Kodak Ektar Professional 100 ASA film? Yeah.... :-) I
thought of that comparison a few hours ago, and it fits, even though it's
film, not digital[1].
Thanks,
--jim
[1] OT: I still prefer film for some photography, at least, until I
have the money to get the latest---whatever is the latest at that
time---Nikon professional-class DSLR. And maybe still even then,
unless, by that time, digital has more density and color depth
than pro-quality film like Ektar Pro, which can literally be enlarged
to WALL sized without a hint of grainyness (pixelation for digital).
In fact, even its old non-pro predecessor, Ektar 125, which I
discovered around 1990 or so, could be. I saw it first-hand, and it
was incredible (and it was a BIG wall). But that is WAY off-topic,
so I'll end this bit here.
--
THE SCORE: ME: 2 CANCER: 0
73 DE N5IAL (/4) | Peter da Silva: No, try "rm -rf /"
spooky1...@gmail.com | Dave Aronson: As your life flashes before
< Running FreeBSD 7.0 > | your eyes, in the unit of time known as an
ICBM / Hurricane: | ohnosecond.... (alt.sysadmin.recovery)
30.44406N 86.59909W |
Android Apps Listing at http://www.jstrack.org/barcodes.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
