convolution vs. transform
Jaymz Julian <jaymz-y6qSm6YX8/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.freedesktop.xserver |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
a couple of questions to which i currently lack the answers relating to convolutions. a) Which would be considered the correct order to do things in, convole -> transform -> composite, or transform -> convole -> composite? (I suspect that the latter is the more attractive option, although under the current implentation of composite+transform, the former is easier to implement. I did have the idea that maybe we should support both as picture properties (neither is implemented right now, only matrix convolutions as a standalone op are), but that just seems like overkill. One point to note, i guess, is that many, many video cards can accelerate a composite+transform in one op if the convolution comes first, but it's require 2 graphics card ops if the convolution has to happen in the middle). b) which is considered a better interface - one call per differnet type of convolution (XRenderMatrixConvolution, XRenderGaussianBlur, etc), or just a single call with an op parameter? (I'm leaning towards the second of these right now, but that's mostly because that's path of least resistance - juggling Render, XRender, and xserver is annoying :-p). -- jj -- Jaymz Julian aka A Life in Hell / Warriors of the Wasteland / Unreal Coder, Visionary, Fat Ass. overdrive, overscan, over awed, over it. We're heading for a mad-man situation.