Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 08:23:19AM -0400, Jose Gonzalez wrote: > >>> 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. >> > > Sure, but at least if you use any type of non-trivial interpolation > algorithm to compute the final non-power-of-2-fraction, you get inferior > results if you cut down to the next larger power-of-2-fraction first. > Consider you want to scale down from 64 pixel to 31 pixel -- you throw a > lot of information away by scaling down to 32 pixel first, even though > that is cheap. >
The semantics isn't entirely up for grabs. Either we choose the nearest power-of-2 fraction which is greater than the desired, or nearest period. Usually, for this application one would take the former (though at the moment I don't recall what Carsten threw in there), and in your example that would mean no jpg-scaling and simply software down-scale to 31. ____________________________________________________________ Click here to learn more about nursing jobs. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nEvqmZOLkAWwQAYSvo27S4bivdhr74iMV0bWjas2KUksPji/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
