Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:05:37AM -0400, Jose Gonzalez wrote: > >> And btw, why would one be so foolish, when implementing the size-load-opts >> down-scaling for jpgs, that they would simply software down-scale all the way >> from the src size down to the load-opt size? Why would they not do just what >> you're suggesting people do themselves - find the nearest power-of-2 >> fraction, >> jpg-downscale to that, and then software down-scale the rest of the way? :) >> > > Scaling to the nearest power-of-2 is certainly asking for horrible > resuls. I also don't think the hardware acceleration will buy you much, > transferr overhead is quite high and not-so-current hardware is huge > limitations on maximum sizes it can handle. E.g. the given example > wouldn't work with most IGD chips. > >
Power-of-2 *fraction*, ie. 1/2, 1/4, etc. of the original size. But you're right about hw accel gains, for many cases it'll likely be minimal or none or worse for the kinds of uses needed. > Joerg > > PS: I thought common policy was still line wrapping after 72 chars... > > These are uncommon times I guess. :) ____________________________________________________________ Click here for free information on nursing degrees, up to $150/hour http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nEnlFZFLqNFhAlWf8gdjAYPC6596zXonwuOFovnDi32Q6DW/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
