headers
salsaman | 1 Oct 2005 02:53
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Babl at piksel?

Øyvind Kolås wrote:

>I was initially hoping to release 1.0 of babl at piksel, this won't
>happen due to too much work at my day job, as well as hacking focus
>being diverted at the moment.
>
>I won't make it to piksel, but I have a slight glimmer of hope that
>babl itself will be present in some form.
>
>Babl is a framework providing an expandable vocabulary to describe
>pixel formats, (sometimes known as palettes) as well as reference
>conversions between all expressible pixel formats.
>
>More information can be found on the babl website http://pippin.gimp.org/babl/
>
>The reference conversions are slow, but AFAIK accurate. Babl also
>provides the ability to register optimized conversion functions, that
>are checked against the reference versions when a chain of conversions
>between two formats -- a BablFishPath -- is constructed.
>http://pippin.gimp.org/babl/BablFishPath.html shows the current
>shortcut coverage.
>
>Babl currently lacks the ability to properly handle chroma sub
>sampling and dithering but is otherwise feature complete.
>
>Any comments on the API and further optimization extensions / changes
>to the vocabulary used is welcome.
>
>/pippin
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Niels Elburg | 1 Oct 2005 11:11
Favicon

Re: Babl at piksel?


>> Babl is a framework providing an expandable vocabulary to describe
>> pixel formats, (sometimes known as palettes) as well as reference
>> conversions between all expressible pixel formats.
>>

> Hi Ovind,
> I would be happy to have a session about libbabl, since you mentioned it to 
> me at whatthehack and I have been looking into it :-)
>
> I've also brought it to the attention of some of the other livido developers.
>
> My idea is to create a livido-palette utility library which will do palette 
> conversion for livido.
>
> Niels is currently (please hurry up !) creating a new palette list for 
> livido, hopefully this will fit quite nicely with babl.
>
> Cheers and thanks for your efforts :-)
>
> Gabriel.
>

Pixel format conversion (still) remains a Host task. A part from libbabl, 
many application programmers use the FFmpeg library or other libraries
for pixel format conversions. I dont see a direct need for a livido 
palette utility library as it will only wrap the libbabl and use alias 
names for the palettes.

Ovind, too bad you cant make it to pisel.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Øyvind Kolås | 1 Oct 2005 12:00
Picon

Re: Babl at piksel?

On 10/1/05, Niels Elburg <nelburg <at> looze.net> wrote:
> Pixel format conversion (still) remains a Host task. A part from libbabl,
> many application programmers use the FFmpeg library or other libraries
> for pixel format conversions. I dont see a direct need for a livido
> palette utility library as it will only wrap the libbabl and use alias
> names for the palettes.

I agree that pixel format conversion is a host task, and babl is meant
to be a library
trying to avoid the duplication between hosts. One of the things I
hope to do, and others already can help with, is creating babl
extensions wrapping amongst others
the conversions in ffmpeg. The benefits gained from binding already
existing conversion is taking advantage of existing efforts, as well
as accuracy testing of both the reference types/models registered with
babl and the fast paths in the used libraries.

/Øyvind K.

--
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
                                                 -- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/                            http://ffii.org/

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
salsaman | 1 Oct 2005 12:30
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Babl at piksel?

Niels Elburg wrote:

>
>>> Babl is a framework providing an expandable vocabulary to describe
>>> pixel formats, (sometimes known as palettes) as well as reference
>>> conversions between all expressible pixel formats.
>>>
>
>> Hi Ovind,
>> I would be happy to have a session about libbabl, since you mentioned 
>> it to me at whatthehack and I have been looking into it :-)
>>
>> I've also brought it to the attention of some of the other livido 
>> developers.
>>
>> My idea is to create a livido-palette utility library which will do 
>> palette conversion for livido.
>>
>> Niels is currently (please hurry up !) creating a new palette list 
>> for livido, hopefully this will fit quite nicely with babl.
>>
>> Cheers and thanks for your efforts :-)
>>
>> Gabriel.
>>
>
> Pixel format conversion (still) remains a Host task. A part from 
> libbabl, many application programmers use the FFmpeg library or other 
> libraries
> for pixel format conversions. I dont see a direct need for a livido
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Øyvind Kolås | 1 Oct 2005 12:43
Picon

Re: Babl at piksel?

On 10/1/05, salsaman <salsaman <at> xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Niels Elburg wrote:
> >>> Babl is a framework providing an expandable vocabulary to describe
> >>> pixel formats, (sometimes known as palettes) as well as reference
> >>> conversions between all expressible pixel formats.
>
> Also there is the case that in a normal plugin, host sets different
> palettes for in and out channels. Then obviously the plugin needs to do
> palette conversions.

What I did in gggl was to have a special op for use as a node in the
processing graph called a proxy. This op is essentially a filter that
can have any palette for both in and out channels. Gggl inserts such a
proxy plugin when two connected  plugins do not have a palette in
common.

Babl was inspired by this internal proxy plugin in gggl, and has now
replaced it.

An incoherent log of the process of replacing babls ancestor is found here:

http://pippin.gimp.org/tmp/gggl_babl.txt

I don't currently have the time to put out recent versions of gggl
using babl, since I'm working towards the deadline of an exhibition.

/Øyvind K.

--
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
salsaman | 2 Oct 2005 15:14
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Livido spec

Hi all,
since nobody (apart from Niels) replied to my license query, and there is
not much time until piksel and still a lot to do, I am forced to make the
following assumptions:

- Niels is happy with the current spec
- Nobody has any objections to the documentation being under CC

So what I plan to do:

- correct a few spelling mistakes/obvious errors I noticed in the spec
- put it under CC license, adding a sentence that the livido developers
can change the spec until we have the 1.0 final version

- start on a new livido.h LGPL reference implementation following the
current spec.
- start on LGPL utility library functions
- start on sample plugin/host code

We are still waiting for an updated palette list from Niels.

Thanks for all your help,
Gabriel.

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 42 comments |
headers
Niels Elburg | 2 Oct 2005 16:02
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

> Hi all,
> since nobody (apart from Niels) replied to my license query, and there is
> not much time until piksel and still a lot to do, I am forced to make the
> following assumptions:
>
> - Niels is happy with the current spec
> - Nobody has any objections to the documentation being under CC
>
> So what I plan to do:
>
> - correct a few spelling mistakes/obvious errors I noticed in the spec
> - put it under CC license, adding a sentence that the livido developers
> can change the spec until we have the 1.0 final version
>
> - start on a new livido.h LGPL reference implementation following the
> current spec.
> - start on LGPL utility library functions
> - start on sample plugin/host code
>
> We are still waiting for an updated palette list from Niels.
>
> Thanks for all your help,
> Gabriel.
>
>

Gabriel,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 41 comments |
headers
salsaman | 2 Oct 2005 16:21
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> since nobody (apart from Niels) replied to my license query, and there
>> is
>> not much time until piksel and still a lot to do, I am forced to make
>> the
>> following assumptions:
>>
>> - Niels is happy with the current spec
>> - Nobody has any objections to the documentation being under CC
>>
>> So what I plan to do:
>>
>> - correct a few spelling mistakes/obvious errors I noticed in the spec
>> - put it under CC license, adding a sentence that the livido developers
>> can change the spec until we have the 1.0 final version
>>
>> - start on a new livido.h LGPL reference implementation following the
>> current spec.
>> - start on LGPL utility library functions
>> - start on sample plugin/host code
>>
>> We are still waiting for an updated palette list from Niels.
>>
>> Thanks for all your help,
>> Gabriel.
>>
>>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 40 comments |
headers
Niels Elburg | 2 Oct 2005 18:31
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>>
>> Gabriel,
>>
>> You cannot put the livido specification under the CC license. Its
>> nonsense and I wont let it happen.
>>
>> Livido is and will remain Free Software, licensed under the LGPL.
>>
>> The specification , our interface definition (!), will be licensed under
>> the LGPL and is part of our software package.
>
> Sure, the spec code will be, but you can't license a document under the
> LGPL, it is not sourcecode !
>
>>
>> All documentation we publish on Livido should be put under the GNU FDL.
>> Hence, this includes a document ABOUT the livido specification.
>
> I already looked at this and gave you my view.
>
> The FDL allows a document to be distributed and CHANGED !
>
> Can you imagine what will happen ? Some other group of developers could
> take our spec, change it around and then claim that theirs is the
> "official" livido spec !
>
> Can you really not understand what I am saying ???
>
> We need a documentation license which allows the spec to be distributed
> freely, but without authorised changes.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 39 comments |
headers
jaromil | 2 Oct 2005 19:08
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


re,

of course if we don't all agree on the license it must stay as it is.

but he documentation license wasn't discussed so far, so we need to
choose, also considered that with the new approach implemented in Livido
during the last year the Specification is more important than the header
and implementation.

the FDL is kind-of deprecated by many FLOSS advocates,
including Debian developers.

the Creative Commons looks like a good candidate to me, alltough we must
choose the formula for it.

i agree with Niels that restricting Livido for changes by the original
committee of programmers is not a good idea, as it might prevent its
evolution path. i'm for leaving it free and open for changes, with full
attribution, so that one can recognize who did what and eventually
un/trust certain changes, IMO

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply | 38 comments |

Gmane