I imagine it could be done by adding 2 layers filled with the same solid greyscale value (one of the sliders determine the amount of grey i think) ..... one layer having SCREEN as the blend mode and another set to LIGHTEN or something like that.... fairly sure that could produce some nice tweaks..... it's just start photoshop with one of the photos and play around!
If I'm halfway right in the above theory it would seem that they don't perform any action for many of the effects except fill a layer with a solid color (should be a fast blit for the cpu).... some of the effects do need a convolution filter multiplied on the source image..... unclear if flash has a blur method for bitmaps.... i would imagine they do though --Allan On Dec 4, 2007 1:53 AM, Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > None of the effects at picnik is done with pixel level manipulations. > They are using Bitmap operations. I don't know, how exactly the > exposure effect can be achieved. I would try googling for Flash/Flex > experiments. I'm sure you can find somebody explaining/showing it. > > Cheers > Ralf. > > > On Dec 4, 2007 10:39 AM, larryzzl <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]<larryzzl.flex%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you said very clearly. Do you mean that > > I should use the single whole ARGB unsigned int value but not a single > > color value? I'm not very sure about the "32bit block" in you mail. > > But I think some algorithm need to deal with R,G,B color separately. > > > > Could you give me some code example which can make me understand more > > clearly if you have time. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, > DreamCode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Well... a blur is not at pixel level either.... That can be handled in > > > blocks too.... I might see this fairly clear as I come from an ASM > > > background...... the thing you need to realize is that performing an > > action > > > on a 32bit block is not much slower that it is performing the same > > action of > > > a pixel.... actually the pixel is most likely slower... the cpu > > still read > > > 32bits although it seems like it only reads one.... but with the > single > > > pixel it needs to perform an AND when it reads it and 2 x ( AND + OR > > ) when > > > it writes it ..... with a 32 bit block it is not..... on top of > > that, since > > > a blur is essentially a form of convolute filter the pixel version > > need to > > > read it's some radius of neighboring pixels.... radius being the > > amount of > > > blur to apply. So that's another now we have another stack of single > > pixel > > > to process.... so now what started out to be a pixel process is > actually > > > getting/putting another 20 pixels in a 3.0 blur (radius) scenario..... > > > > > > 323 > > > 32123 > > > 21X12 > > > 32123 > > > 323 > > > > > > Now multiply that by your 0.75megapixels..... IT ADDS UP > > > > > > --Allan > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <ralf.bokelberg%40gmail.com>> > Flex & Flash Consultant based in Cologne/Germany > > >
