This code fragment:
+ /* t = frac(i_vtex*size)
...
+ ureg_MUL(shader, t, i_vtex, ureg_imm1f(shader, size));
Probably doesn't do what you expect it to do when the pixel center is at
0.5 instead of 0.0.
For the matrix and most other filters the difference doesn't matter
because you get the same offset on x/y as input you need to apply in the
texture instructions as well.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 27.06.2016 um 15:51 schrieb Nayan Deshmukh:
Hi Christian,
I haven't taken that into account, but how will it any way affect my
calculation. I have written
the code taking inspiration from the way matrix_filter uses offsets.
Regards,
Nayan.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Christian König
<deathsim...@vodafone.de <mailto:deathsim...@vodafone.de>> wrote:
Hi guys,
Nayan have you taken into account that the pixel center is at 0.5
and not 0.0?
Regards,
Christian.
Am 26.06.2016 um 22:30 schrieb Andy Furniss:
Nayan Deshmukh wrote:
Hi Andy,
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Andy Furniss
<adf.li...@gmail.com <mailto:adf.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Nayan Deshmukh wrote:
Hi Andy,
Thanks for testing the patches.
Please send me the videos and ratios with which
there is corruption.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxP5-S1t9VEEaHZEM203RFpyNEE/view?usp=sharing
This has no aspect encoded and displayed fullscreen on
a 1920x1080
monitor shows vertical line artifacts over the first
2/3 of the image.
When I say lines they are not lines as such just that
the distortion
on the pendulum shows as it passes over imaginary
lines at fixed
points on the screen.
with mplayer -aspect 4/3 or 16/9 it doesn't.
I tested the videos and found out that the distortion is
because of the
amount
of calculation done in the fragment shader. I tested the
video with
vl_median_filter
and it showed no distortion however, with
vl_matrix_filter( which requires
more
calculations than vl_median_filter) it showed the same
distortion. I'll try
to make it
more efficient. But it still requires a lot of processing
for a single
pixel as it uses
15 neighbouring pixel.
Seems a bit strange, does the processing needed vary greatly with
similar scale amounts? I have a powerful GPU and can force clocks
high, but it makes no difference.
Below is a png showing the artifacts I see on pendulum fullscreen
are these what you see?
If rather than full screen I stretch out the window to scale,
there
will be many sizes that don't produce those.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxP5-S1t9VEEd2hwNVp0ZXRSZTA/view?usp=sharing
Also I don't see any offsets with the videos, may be I am
missing something.
If could tell me more about the offsets, I'll try to debug
them.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxP5-S1t9VEEUGZTbndOMzBNZnM/view?usp=sharing
Is a default scale, if you download both pngs and use something to
display them both at the same time and line up the windows one on
top of the other then flip between them you can see although the
windows are lined up the images contained are not.
You can make your own screen/window shots with xwd and display
them
with xwud. For me using fluxbox as a desktop it's easy to line up
windows as they snap a bit towards the edge of the screen YMMV.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
<mailto:mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
