So the clamping is 30 to 40% faster. Did you measure what impact does it have
on the overall image processing? How much time does clamping take in the entire
computation of the pixel color (with that bicubic interpolation)?
Kirill
[Message sent by forum member 'kirillcool' (kirillcool)]
Yeah, when I integrated it into my bi-cubic interpolator, it slowed it down
compared to the logical check clamp. I'm not sure why yet. Maybe it was the
way I integrated it. I don't know.
In my test suite, the time to interpolate a 944 x 644 image went from 1350ms
using the logical test
It could be due to branch prediction by the cpu.
Ken Warner wrote:
Yeah, when I integrated it into my bi-cubic interpolator, it slowed it
down compared to the logical check clamp. I'm not sure why yet. Maybe
it was the way I integrated it. I don't know.
In my test suite, the time to
Branch prediction would work just as well in the original tests Ken ran,
I think. There must be something else going on.
Jim wrote:
It could be due to branch prediction by the cpu.
Ken Warner wrote:
Yeah, when I integrated it into my bi-cubic interpolator, it slowed it
down compared to the
In my test suite, the time to interpolate a 944 x 644 image went from 1350ms
using the logical test clamp
to 1440ms using the triple shift. I'm not sure why... I work on a real slow
(800mhz) machine just
so I can see these kinds of things better.
Could you post that test? Maybe someone
Not really, it's the whole applet. I just stick in some timing code to watch
sections of it. Just imagine those logical tests replaced by the triple shift.
I'll post a snippet tomorrow.
See:
http://pancyl.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my test suite, the time to interpolate a 944 x
