Re: Re-4: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread Christian Schmitz
Am 25.11.2011 um 00:50 schrieb Kev: > Hi Christian. > > How did you check the results? Was it visually or did you compare the binary > output from the two versions? I compared the PNGs from both formats and didn't see a difference. > Did you notice any performance improvements when you switch

Re: Re-4: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread Kev
List Cc: Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 12:49 Subject: Re: Re-4: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage? Am 24.11.2011 um 12:55 schrieb MGE Info: >> I did some comparisons and it looks like it doesn't have a visible effect. >> But please test wh

Re: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread Christian Schmitz
Am 24.11.2011 um 18:31 schrieb Michael Diehr: > Would it be possible to make the yield ticks value into a yieldMilliseconds > value instead? Or, to be more backwards compatible, how about the yieldTicks > value could be a double? Better use the MT variant in a thread. > Also - the MT - multi

Re: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread Michael Diehr
On Nov 23, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Christian Schmitz wrote: > > Am 22.11.2011 um 17:30 schrieb Michael Diehr: > >> * does not require tons of memory > > I'll reduce the Scaling method memory need. > > For some reason we used doubles there and now I simply use UInt8 which > reduces memory requiremen

Re: Re-4: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread Christian Schmitz
Am 24.11.2011 um 12:55 schrieb MGE Info: >> I did some comparisons and it looks like it doesn't have a visible effect. >> But please test when the next pr is available. > Wouldnt it be moreexisting code friendly, to add a Parameter using old and > new behavior? > In my case there would be to muc

Re-4: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread MGE Info
> I did some comparisons and it looks like it doesn't have a visible effect. > But please test when the next pr is available. Wouldnt it be moreexisting code friendly, to add a Parameter using old and new behavior? In my case there would be to much to test. Thomas __

Re: Re-2: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread Christian Schmitz
Am 24.11.2011 um 12:25 schrieb MGE Info: > Christian, > >> For some reason we used doubles there and now I simply use UInt8 which >> reduces memory requirements by more than 80%. > For all scaling filters? > Doesnt this break any excisting RB-Code or scaling quality? I did some comparisons an

Re-2: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-24 Thread MGE Info
large picture with yielding w/low memory usage? (23-Nov-2011 16:59) From:Christian Schmitz To: mbsplugins@monkeybreadsoftware.info > > Am 22.11.2011 um 17:30 schrieb Michael Diehr: > > > * does not require tons of memory > > I'll reduce the Scaling method m

Re: [MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-23 Thread Christian Schmitz
Am 22.11.2011 um 17:30 schrieb Michael Diehr: > * does not require tons of memory I'll reduce the Scaling method memory need. For some reason we used doubles there and now I simply use UInt8 which reduces memory requirements by more than 80%. Greetings Christian -- See you in Orlando, Flori

[MBS] Downsize large picture with yielding w/low memory usage?

2011-11-22 Thread Michael Diehr
I have a situation where I need to downsize a 1 x 1 pixel image down to roughly 4000 x 4000. Right now I can do this with RB picture objects, but the call to .drawPicture(...) blocks for about 5000msec. As I'm trying to maintain a 60fps openGL animation at the same time, this is a bit o