Quote:
|
Another issue is the resolution. Each resolution change is a 4x pixels difference. 640x480 images are nearly 1MB bit and take 100ms simply to decompress. All processing will be about four times as expensive as the 320x240. The 320x240 images take about 22ms to decode, and this was the size I used for the examples. This was really just a built in performance handicap, and it is about 4x slower than the 160x120 image. The small image takes 8ms to decode and the processing will similarly be about four times faster.
|
At what point does a decreased resolution become unusable? Obviously a 1 pixel resolution will not do much good, but decreasing from 604x480 to 160x120 seems like a significant improvement.