4 ms·
As I recall, the basic idea was for something lighter-weight than spinning up and spinning down imagemagick. Then again, one wonders why not just use FreeImage
by angersock 12y ago
As I recall, the basic idea was for something lighter-weight than spinning up and spinning down imagemagick.
Then again, one wonders why not just use FreeImage or something?
- listic 12y agoHow does FreeImage compare to ImageMagick?
- angersock 12y agoIt handles image loading, unloading, and basic manipulation options. I imagine, especially if the traffic is mainly for downsampling, it'd be sufficient. If it's not, then writing some custom code to do the image transforms on a GPU and bring them back shouldn't be that gnarly--and if you can afford to stick a shitton of macs in a data center, you can afford a graphics programmer to get that done.
- 72deluxe 12y agoIs running imagemagick really that intensive? Isn't running shaders intensive as it needs to be compiled on the fly and handed off to the GPU driver?
- angersock 12y agoSwitching between shaders is orders of magnitudes cheaper than spinning up and spinning down a process.