Re: Pure Quartz vs. Cocoa-Objects ... why is Quartz slower?
Re: Pure Quartz vs. Cocoa-Objects ... why is Quartz slower?
- Subject: Re: Pure Quartz vs. Cocoa-Objects ... why is Quartz slower?
- From: Michael Becker <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:20:21 +0100
Am 13.02.2005 um 03:59 schrieb Chilton Webb:
One thread displays data stored in a buffer, another reads from the
files and generates the thumbnails. If you've noticed, iPhoto stores
multiple copies of each image. One is a thumbnail, which it reads in
at low res, then goes back for a second pass to fill in the gaps.
Meanwhile the first thread displays the low res images stretched out,
and as the second thread reads in the file with more detail, it
displays it.
That's what I thought, too. But I here's what makes me doubt that: If
you "grab" the zoom slider and move it (without releasing it) the
images turn into "bad quality" mode. And they stay that way just until
you "let go" of the zoom slider. If it were really a background thread,
they should be updated while you hold the slider.
However, this seems like a reasonable path to follow. Right now, my
image-zoom-view is doing alright, but I know it can be done a lot
better. I will probably look a little deeper into CoreGraphics/Quartz
to see if I can do any optimization and then consider using a mixture
of multiple thumbnail caches (which sounds like a lot of memory usage),
background threading etc.
If that won't do, I'll check out OpenGL :-)
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden