There was a mixup with the previous fix to dzsave overlap handling,
correct it and update the test suite.
In the previous revision, dzsave overlapped tiles by overlap and sized
them by tile_size. In fact, tiles should be sized as (tile_size + overlap
* 2), ie. tile_size refers to the number of unique pixels per tile.
See https://github.com/jcupitt/libvips/issues/357
oh argh class and instance methods are in the same namespace, so we have
to rename the instance one as ibandjoin
also, start adding a test for arrayjoin
we now have VIPS_MAX_COORD for maximum image dimension, set to 10m
pixels ... we could go up to 2bn, but 10m seems a reasonable max, at
least for now
see https://github.com/jcupitt/libvips/issues/355
takes a copy of a memory area when making an image ... this helps bindings
for languages which don't have much control over memory
see https://github.com/jcupitt/libvips/issues/346
dzsave now uses :strip => true for all tiles. There's no point adding
all the metadata to every tile, so hopefully this won't break anything.
Thanks Benjamin, see: https://github.com/jcupitt/libvips/issues/349
oops! typo ... also an off-by-one issue for larger stencils
more error checking in interpolators
fix rounding in nohalo/lbb ... they were rounding to nearest in the
interpolator, rather than using floor. This broke assumptions about
stencil position elsewhere. The right way to do centre convention is to offset
the whole input by 0.5 pixels.
small improvements to vips_resize() quality:
* turn down the anti-alias filter a little so we don't smudge out texture
* don't do the final sharpening pass if we skipped the anti-alias filter
* fix a >/>= mixup which meant we didn't sharpen for small resizes
sizealike() / formatalike() and bandsalike() used to just vips_copy() if
the image didn't need any changes ... this was fast, but left a
vips_copy_gen() in the pipeline, wasting a lot of space on the C stack
during recursion.
They now vanish completely if the image is already in the right format.
Since we call them before most image processing operations, and
often all three of them, this saves a lot of C stack, more than x2 even
in simple cases.
There might also be a measureable CPU saving if the operations are very
simple (eg. insert).
See:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/33658795/difficulty-with-handling-very-large-image-using-vips
John Cupitt