• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: FxPlug vs Core Image vs Core Video filters question
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FxPlug vs Core Image vs Core Video filters question


  • Subject: Re: FxPlug vs Core Image vs Core Video filters question
  • From: Paul Schneider <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:12:16 -0500


Hi, Brian,

I agree, it is confusing.

FxPlug and CoreImage serve similar roles; they set things up for your image processing code. They both sit on top of OpenGL; they are not really related to each other.

It would be possible to write an FxPlug filter that was implemented using a CIFilter; you'd simply create a CIContext for the destination buffer, and CIImages out of the input buffers. Our example FxPlugs are a bit lower-level, and run GL fragment programs directly on the supplied GL textures. This is pretty much what CI does as well (a CIKernel is basically a GL fragment program).

Why do we have two separate things? FxPlug and CoreImage have slightly different goals. For example, one of the main features of CI is that it will run your shader in software if the graphics card doesn't support fragment programs. The Pro Apps have higher system requirements than Mac OS X, so we don't need that fallback. FxPlug also has some features (particularly related to sampling images at various times) that CI lacks.

Which technology should you use? It depends on what you plan to deliver. FxPlug is the image processing API for Final Cut Studio, so if you want to write a plugin for Final Cut and/or Motion, write an FxPlug. If you want to write a plugin for other systems (like Quartz Composer, or Pixelmator), write a CIFilter. If you want to deliver your plugin to everyone, you'll have to separate your algorithm from the plugin packaging, and make both an FxPlug and a CI wrapper.

- Paul



On Jan 27, 2008, at 4:38 PM, Brian wrote:

Sorry for interjecting another newbie question.

As a lone newbie, I'm grappling through a lot of documentation.
But, it's a bit confusing to grasp the relationships,
and (dis)advantages of writing a FxPlugin,
versus a filter for Core Image or Core Video.

Is there a relationship between these,
or are they completely separate technologies?

Do people writing image processing code for
video & film, usually just write FxPlugins
for the pro apps? Or do you somehow write
code that can be used as both FxPlugins
and Core Image and/or Core Video filters?

 -- Brian


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Pro-apps-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Pro-apps-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >FxPlug vs Core Image vs Core Video filters question (From: Brian <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: question about fcp 5.1.4
  • Next by Date: Re: Motion bug in 32 bit on MacIntel?
  • Previous by thread: FxPlug vs Core Image vs Core Video filters question
  • Next by thread: Re: FxPlug vs Core Image vs Core Video filters question
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread