Yet another bug. This time filters vs selections

[Cyrille Berger]

On Wednesday 09 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:
> > to use such a solution for Shiva based filters, since OpenShiva doesn't
> > know anything about masks and selections.
>
> I don't know how to make a benchmark of that, i guess, it would be
> interesting to look at. We could test for the cold-cache problem at least.
> (We could assume that big holes in a selection are quite rare and not very
> important).
To benchmark that, since currently it doesn't work, it's quiet easy to test 
the speed of method 2.

You just have to make something like:

* KisPaintDevice tmp;
* filter->process(KisProcessInfo(src, src.origin() ), KisProcessInfo(tmp, 
QPoint(0,0), selection()), size);
* then apply the mask on dst

And see the overhead of applying the mask. It's still worth to pass the 
selection, so that we don't compute pixel value when the pixel is unselected.

To do a fair comparison, it would be nice to then modify the filter with the 
method of 1).

Thinking about that, the highest cost will be the creation of tiles for the 
tmp KisPaintDevice and the need to iterate twice.

-- 
Cyrille Berger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20090910/85457786/attachment.htm