Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2000 - 17:32:00 EET
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 05:51:03PM +0100, Benno Senoner wrote:
> That's obvious that I can't represent 24bit numbers with a 100-200 pixel
> (in height) fader (barely 8bit :-) ).
> But why should the idea of providing single pixel precision in the faders
> be absurd ?
> I'mean: when I play mixer automation data back with visual feedback on the
> faders, why should I use a let's say 4-8 pixel granularty and see a jerky
> movement (especially during very slow fades) rather than a smooth one ?
Well, 200 pixel slider ~= 4000 pixels, times 194 frames (say) gives
roughly 2.2Meg of (24bit) pixmaps, which seems a bit much for a fader.
If you do it with a seperate background and foreground image then you have
to composit the moving part over that background part, which I guess uses
valuable CPU time. Plus the configuration is more complicated.
> ok, and I think since we are not going to move the rack-windows continuously,
> the window movement speed should be a minor issue.
I think that the xmms laggyness problem varies with graphics card.
My G400 at work suffers terribly (when dragging over netscape for
example), but other machines I've used don't seem to suffer as badly.
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 28 2000 - 18:24:30 EET