Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> writes:

> In article <qqm### [at] schlattfmiuni-konstanzde>, Thomas 
> Willhalm <tho### [at] willhalmde> wrote:
> > Perhaps you should consider to apply the filter on the fly. I know 
> > that you need more than one pixel a time for several of the 
> > exististing and proposed filters. Perhaps it is possible to determine 
> > which one you need and forget the others.
> 
> This would probably be quite difficult...currently, a filter can access 
> any position in the data "images". To do this, you would have to do it 
> during rendering, and would probably have to place restrictions on the 
> possible things the filters can do. Either that, or recalculate the data 
> as it is required...which could get extremely slow. Most people have 
> enough disk space.
> 
> And what is wrong with a temporary file anyway?

My small hard disc ;-)

I wasn't aware that most filters use much more than a few pixels at a time.
In future, I will be more patient and watch the implementations coming 
before I doubt their usefulness.

Thomas

-- 
http://thomas.willhalm.de/ (includes pgp key)

Post a reply to this message