[GEM-dev] RGBA confusion...

[Jack]

Just for example, here is what i get when i open a simple image with  
Gem (without alpha) with a recent Pd-extended (20080524) and GEM:  
ver: 0.91.0 'tigital' on PowerBook G4 (PowerPC) and MacOSX.4.11. All  
works fine with Pd-extended (20080315) and GEM: ver: 0.91-cvs. So i  
only use this Pd and Gem now on my PowerPC.
I also send an email about a problem with [pix_mask] too.
++

Jack
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Archive.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 72858 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/gem-dev/attachments/20080528/4fd8acf1/attachment.zip>
-------------- next part --------------


Le 28 mai 08 ? 18:54, IOhannes m zmoelnig a ?crit :

> chris clepper wrote:
>> The problem with the pix_ objects is the MMX code on is fixed to a
>> different order than what OSX Intel uses.  For some objects this  
>> makes
>> no difference, but others require the components in a specific order.
>> So to fix some bug complaints I swapped the byte order to match  
>> the MMX
>> code, but this broke other things so it was switched back.  Perhaps
>> defining some MMX/SSE macros for the order would sort this out?
>>
>> I don't think there are any GL alpha problems at all.
>
> the problem is most likely not with openGL.
> however, the problem is not only with SIMD code, even after your  
> changes.
>
> a test of [pix_mask] revealed a lot of weirdnesses (but  
> unfortunately i
> don't have access to my test-patch right now, so i try to  
> reconstruct it
> by heart)
> the tests have been done on an i686 (OSX-10.4.?)
> i got different results when using [pix_image], [pix_film] and
> [pix_video] as pix-source; i also get different results when using
> [colorspace RGBA( vs [pix_rgba]
> the results differ in both swapping color-channels _and_ having
> different "types". iirc, images in RGBA space with type
> GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8_REV where almost certain to yield blueish
> results with alpha mask not working.
> finally, [pix_mask] does _not_ involve any MMX/SSE2 code.
>
> i am pretty sure that on macIntel images of type GL_BGRA_EXT are _not_
> of type GL_UNSIGNED_INT_8_8_8_8_REV, is this correct?
>
> anyhow, i thought before i start thinking about changing things and
> making them worse, i would rather now what the target layout of the
> colors is, that's why i started the wiki.
>
> and yes, i also think that having some macros for the SSE/MMX code  
> will
> help us (but i am not that far yet...)
>
> fgmadsr
> IOhannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GEM-dev mailing list
> GEM-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev