home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!unidui!Germany.EU.net!mpifr-bonn.mpg.de!specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de!mlelstv
- From: mlelstv@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst)
- Subject: Re: Chunky Pixel Mode for Low End Chip Set?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec27.011313.18163@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>
- Sender: news@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
- Nntp-Posting-Host: specklec
- Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie
- References: <Karsten_Weiss.0n2o@ibase.stgt.sub.org> <1hbngoINNglt@uwm.edu> <jbickers.0m2n@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <72410@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec26.170503.14668@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> <jbickers.0m3z@templar.actrix.gen.nz>
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:13:13 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- In <jbickers.0m3z@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:
- > convert to planar when you update your display, and if you're
- > only using 8-bit data then chunky pixels also let you be more
- > "interactive", where screen updates are fast enough that you can
- > show the progress of your processing pixel by pixel.
-
- The major point is that with any 'image processing' the time needed for
- chunky->planar conversion is only a small fraction of the whole calculation
- time. I also think that if you want to see pixel by pixel progress then
- the overhead for calling the WritePixel routine is larger than for the
- chunky->planar conversion. And if you want to recognize pixel by pixel
- changes then your program _must_ be so slow that the rendering speed
- doesn't matter at all.
-
- Regards,
- --
- Michael van Elst
- UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
- Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-