Re: Is interpolation of image-border specified by Render?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Clemens Eisserer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Maarten, Bilinear and nearest are standard texture unit properties, this should pose no difficulty for drivers. Good to know, thanks. I was a bit concerned when mixing both with src and mask. As far as the mask goes, nearest should guarantee a sharp border. I'd expect things to go ok with the size if you keep in mind it's fixed point transformation, but i'm not a 100% sure. Well, it seems to work perfectly with pixman, I don't see any problems over a very large scale range. However, when using the intel-driver I soon seem to hit precision limits, it works only in a very limited scale range. I also thought that I maybe could use the fact that clip-rects are transformed when set on source (to not having to fillRect the mask all then time), but this doesn't work with any driver I tried (nouveau, intel, nvidia binary). Seems I have to go the fillRect route and tile of the mask is too small :-/ Thanks again, Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Do you have a test program or at least share the transformation matrix you're using, because i'm curious why it fails so badly. Have you tried using a 1x1 mask pixel and scaling that an integer amount? Maarten. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Is interpolation of image-border specified by Render?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Clemens Eisserer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Maarten, Do you have a test program or at least share the transformation matrix you're using, because i'm curious why it fails so badly. Yes I created one, http://pastebin.com/f729a71aa The testcase works perfectly with pixman (even with much higher scale), but on intel seems the mask has too small x/y values. Would be really interesting how other hardware/drivers behave ;) Have you tried using a 1x1 mask pixel and scaling that an integer amount? I used a 16x16 mask ... just without any further thinking, thought it would give me more headroom till I hit precision limits. I've now tried it with a 1x1 mask (as in the attached testcase), its the same. It seems only to work when mask is 0.75-1.5 of the size of the source, otherwise the pixel-borders differ :-/ Thanks, Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Where do these transformation matrices come from? Maarten. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Is interpolation of image-border specified by Render?
Where do these transformation matrices come from? They were created by the Java AffineTransform class. I just dumped it and copied it into the C file. I basically get an AffineTransformation instance (set by the user), inverse it and set it on the source. For the mask I do exactly the same, except I scale it up, by the needed amount. - Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Is interpolation of image-border specified by Render?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Clemens Eisserer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where do these transformation matrices come from? They were created by the Java AffineTransform class. I just dumped it and copied it into the C file. I basically get an AffineTransformation instance (set by the user), inverse it and set it on the source. For the mask I do exactly the same, except I scale it up, by the needed amount. - Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg What are the precise artifacts you see? ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Is interpolation of image-border specified by Render?
Hi Maarten, Do you have a test program or at least share the transformation matrix you're using, because i'm curious why it fails so badly. Yes I created one, http://pastebin.com/f729a71aa The testcase works perfectly with pixman (even with much higher scale), but on intel seems the mask has too small x/y values. Would be really interesting how other hardware/drivers behave ;) Have you tried using a 1x1 mask pixel and scaling that an integer amount? I used a 16x16 mask ... just without any further thinking, thought it would give me more headroom till I hit precision limits. I've now tried it with a 1x1 mask (as in the attached testcase), its the same. It seems only to work when mask is 0.75-1.5 of the size of the source, otherwise the pixel-borders differ :-/ Thanks, Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Is interpolation of image-border specified by Render?
Hi again, Sorry I completly forgot that the black pixels I see are caused by another bug in the intel-driver, which is only visible on i965. This bug causes areas out of source-surface-bounds to appear black instead of transparent, so if your driver does that properly you shouldn't see the artifacts, even if they are there. On my 945GM with latest intel-git it looks like this: http://picasaweb.google.com/linuxhippy/Mask_Transformation# So it seems the mask is a moved a bit left/up, thats why pixel show up which are outside of source-surface bounds. I am currently trying to write a test-case which does not depend on that behaviour, but seems not that easy :-/ Thanks for your patience, Clemens 2008/10/18 Maarten Maathuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Clemens Eisserer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where do these transformation matrices come from? They were created by the Java AffineTransform class. I just dumped it and copied it into the C file. I basically get an AffineTransformation instance (set by the user), inverse it and set it on the source. For the mask I do exactly the same, except I scale it up, by the needed amount. - Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg What are the precise artifacts you see? ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Embedded X
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:21:06AM -0700, William Tracy wrote: glibc chews up what, twenty megabytes? [citation needed] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Embedded X
Thanks for the info. Will be nice if someone can quickly tell any pros and cons of using kdrive instead of Xorg, Pros: pretty much none. Cons: it's not Xorg. Pros: it's easier to understand and to work with. it doesn't have the module loader. Cons: it doesn't have the module loader. it doesn't do acceleration as well. it's not supported as well as X.Org. Juliusz ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Embedded X
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: glibc chews up what, twenty megabytes? [citation needed] $ dpkg -s libc6 locales | grep ^Installed-Size: Installed-Size: 11452 Installed-Size: 11752 That has been built for normal desktop use. I use glibc in MiniMyth and it between 2MB and 3MB. ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
