| Reply | « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
|
My tiled background currently draws 64 16x16 tiles using the drawImage function. If I was to use an array to store the pixels for each tile, and instead of using drawImage, use drawPixels would this have a significant performace increase?
|
|
Yes on Series 40
No on Series 60. Search the Forum. Recently there've been huge discussions of the issue |
|
Not sure if anyone else has this, but i've found that drawPixels is faster for drawing lots of tiles than drawImage on s60.
However drawing large images, like the background, are alot slower using drawPixels than drawImage. |
| EvilCartman |
| View Public Profile |
| Find all posts by EvilCartman |
|
Huh? If you draw a large image you would use only one method call, so why would drawing 1000 small image be faster then?
|
|
Mmm, on the other hand thinking of it, drawImage will have some overhead and so will drawPixels have.... Maybe drawPixels has more overhead on actually drawing a pixel, but less on initialisation/setup.
|
|
Quote:
shmoove |
|
Quote:
|
| EvilCartman |
| View Public Profile |
| Find all posts by EvilCartman |
|
What is the size of image when these methods are equally fast?
Does anybody want to perform a test? :) |
|
Just can't keep my mind off that s60 drawing thing... Another question:
You could use drawPixels() in two fashions: * create offscreen Image using DC; use drawPixels() to fill offscreen Image; use drawImage() to blit offscreen Image to display in paint() method. * use drawPixels() to directly blit to display in paint() method. Did anyone ever tried both? Is it any faster to use drawPixels() in an offscreen Image than directly to screen?
Last edited by dannyc4 : 2003-11-04 at 21:38.
|
| Reply | « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|---|---|