Re: Shrinking bitmaps
Graeme is good at sarcasm:
>>I just did a quick speed test expanding a 64x64 bitmap to twice its size,
> >and my *unoptimized* routine seems to be almost 4 times faster than
yours.
>
> Was it? I'll remember that next time I'm resizing a postage stamp.
Innocently I thought a 128x128 bitmap was a more practical example than
6400x4800, roughly the size of Australian ego.
This time Graeme is in really good form:
> The thing that has escaped your casual inspection is the way the return
> bitmap is built. Your routine uses a sequence the size of the target
bitmap.
In line 7 of my resize function the return sequence is clearly initialized
as a column just one integer wide. It does not take exceptional analytical
skills to see that. Or does it?
Enough.
jiri
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
