On 7/19/20, Steinar H. Gunderson <steinar+ffm...@gunderson.no> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 09:02:30PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>> Yes, this is the non-recursive version, which is O(n) in the number of >>> samples. This is why I recommended the recursive version, which is O(log >>> n) >>> in the number of samples and thus avoids the problem with big lengths. >>> It is fairly straightforward to convert one to the other. >> Really? How so? > > As previously mentioned, you do two samples, then save to a temporary > buffer, > two samples from that buffer with half the distance and so on until your > samples are only one pixel apart. > > You can also try doing three or four samples at a time instead of two; > experiment a bit and see what gives the best performance.
This is very slow. > > /* Steinar */ > -- > Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/ > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
