I'm getting ready to make a drawing application in Windows. I'm just wondering, do drawing programs have a memory bitmap which they lock, then set each pixel, then blit?
I don't understand how Photoshop can move entire layers without lag or flicker without using hardware acceleration. Also in a program like Expression Design, I could have 200 shapes and move them around all at once with no lag. I'm really wondering how this can be done without GPU help.
Also, I don't think super efficient algorithms could justify that?
Look at this question:
Reduce flicker with GDI+ and C++
All you can do about DC drawing without GPU is to reduce flickering. Anything else depends on the speed of filling your memory bitmap. And here you can use efficient algorithms, multithreading and whatever you need.
Certainly modern Photoshop uses GPU acceleration if available. Another possible tool is DMA. You may also find it helpful to read the source code of existing programs like GIMP.
Double (or more) buffering is the way it's done in games, where we're drawing a ton of crap into a "back" buffer while the "front" buffer is being displayed. Then when the draw is done, the buffers are swapped (a pointer swap, not copies!) and the process continues in the new front and back buffers.
Triple buffering offers another bonus, in that you can start drawing two-frames-from-now when next-frame is done, but without forcing a buffer swap in the middle of the screen refresh. Many games do the buffer swap in the middle of the refresh, but you can sometimes see it as visible artifacts (tearing) on the screen.
Anyway- for an app drawing bitmaps into a window, if you've got some "slow" operation, do it into a not-displayed buffer while presenting the displayed version to the rendering API, e.g. GDI. Let the system software handle all of the fancy updating.
Related
When I use the SDL library to set the pixel values in the memory and update the screen, screen tearing occurs whenever the update is too fast. I don't know much about the SDL internals, but my understanding from what I see is that:
The update function returns right after signalling the graphics hardware to read the pixel data from (say) buffer1.
The next frame is painted on buffer2, and update is called again, but this was too fast and the reading from buffer1 still hasn't completed;
My program doesn't know anything about the hardware and assumes that its okay to paint again in buffer1, while this buffer is being sent to the monitor.
The screen is torn.
This isn't a big problem when the velocity of the to-be-painted object is not too fast. The screen still tears, but it is almost non-visible to the human eye, but I'd still be happy if this tearing does not occur at all. I dislike vertical sync, as it produces consistent latency per each frame.
My idea is that probably a new screen buffer can be allocated per each frame to be painted on. When the monitor wants to display something, it should read from the newest buffer.
Is this a possible way already used in practice? If I do want to test my idea, what kind of low level and cross platform library or API I may use? SDL? OpenGL?
Do you think that updating the screen faster than the human eye can see it is productive? if you really must have your engine 100% independent of the retrace, use a triple buffer system. One buffer to display, and 2 buffers to update back and forth to until the screen is ready for the next buffer. Triple is as high as you need to go as if you fill the 2nd back buffer, you can just write over the now defunct 1st back buffer instead. No GPU lag and only 3 buffers.
Here is a nice link describing this technique along with some warnings about using it on modern GPUs...
Note: In mine OpenGL project i have enabled SDL_GL_SwapBuffers, like so SDL_GL_SetAttribute(SDL_GL_DOUBLEBUFFER, 1).
How do i retain the pixels after calling SDL_GL_SwapBuffers(), so to reuse the rendered pixels without having to render them again, and than how do i combine the retained pixels as the background layer, clear the buffer with glClear() and render polygons on top the background layer?
Provide commented sample code.
Technically you might be able to get the old contents of the backbuffer back depending on what swap method you have selected. This is a total hack, but it could work. If it is exchange, if you swap buffers again without clearing the color buffer you might have an old copy of the frontbuffer lying around in the backbuffer. If your swap method is copy, then your backbuffer should never be cleared unless you issue glClear (...) yourself. Be careful, because there is a third common swap option that leaves the contents of the buffers undefined if you try to read them after swapping.
The last swap behavior I mentioned is common on embedded graphics devices, like PowerVR (iOS). Not so much on desktops. And this all assumes that OpenGL's window system implementation is using 1 frontbuffer and 1 backbuffer, which brings me back to the statement that this is a total hack. Behind the scenes implementations can implement triple-buffering, and most of the window system APIs do not even provide a way to request the number of backbuffers let alone query it. Swap chains are nasty things in the GL world :-\
In short, frame amortized rendering (using values computed during prior frames to finish an algorithm) can be accomplished in OpenGL but you will only make life more difficult if you try to use the actual front/backbuffer(s) that the window system (e.g. WGL, glX, CGL, EGL) uses. What you need to do is quite simple, draw into an FBO and manage a swap-chain of FBOs yourself. This will unfortunately increase memory requirements, but it is how most modern graphics engines do amortization.
You will need to lookup FBOs yourself for this one, I explained the theory and that is really all you can expect (for future reference) since the question did not include any code.
Well, I want to know.. maybe others too.
Is it possible to control each pixel separately on a screen by programming, especially C or C++?
Do you need special control over the drivers for the current screen? Are there operating systems which allow you to change pixels (for example draw a message/overlay on top of everything)?
Or does windows support this maybe in it's WinApi?
Edit:
I am asking this question because I want to make my computer warn me when I'm gaming and my processor gets too hot. I mainly use Windows but I have a dual boot ubuntu distro.
The lower you go, the more hassle you'll run into.
If you want raw pixel manipulation you might check out http://www.libsdl.org/ which helps you mitigate the hassle of creating surfaces/windows and that kind of stuff.
Linux has a few means to get you even lower if you want (ie without "windows" or "xwindows" or anything of the sort, just the raw screen), look in to the Linux Frame Buffer if you're interested in that.
Delving even lower (such as doing things with your own OS), the BIOS will let you go into certain video modes, this is what OS installers tend to use (at least they used to, some of the fancier ones don't anymore). This isn't the fastest way of doing things, but can get you into the realm of showing pixels in a few assembly instructions.
And of course if you wanted to do your own OS and take advantage of the video card (bypass the BIOS), you're then talking about writing video drivers and such, which is obviously a substantial amount of work :)
Re overlay messages ontop of the screen and that sort of thing, windows does support that sort of thing, so I'm sure you can do it with the WinAPI, although there are likely libraries that would make that easier. I do know you don't need to delve too deep to do that sort of thing though.
Let's look at each bit at a time:
Is it possible to control each pixel separately on a screen by
programming, especially C or C++?
Possibly. It really depends on the graphics architecture, and in many modern systems, the actual screen surface (that is "the bunch of pixels appearing on the screen") is not directly under software control - at least not from "usermode" (that is, from an application that you or I can write - you need to write driver code, and you need to co-operate sufficiently with the existing graphics driver).
It is generally accepted that drawing the data into an off-screen buffer and using a BitBlt [BitBlockTransfer] function to copy the content onto the screen is the prefferred way to do this sort of thing.
So, in reality, you probably can't manipulate each pixel ON the screen - but you may be able to appear like you do.
Do you need special control over the drivers for the current screen?
Assuming you could get direct access to the screen memory, your code certainly will have to have cooperation with the driver - otherwise, who's to say that what you want to appear on the screen doesn't get overwritten by something else [e.g. you want full screen access, and the clock-updater updates the time on screen every once a minute on top of what you draw, etc].
You may be able to set the driver into a mode where you have a "hole" that allows you to access the screen memory as a big "framebuffer". I don't think there's an easy way to do this in Windows. I don't remember one from back in 2003-2005 when I wrote graphics drivers for a living.
Are there operating systems which allow you to change pixels (for
example draw a message/overlay on top of everything)?
It is absolutely possible to create an overlay layer in the hardware of modern graphics cards. That's generally how video playback works - the video is played into a piece of framebuffer memory that is overlaid on top of the other graphics. You need help from the driver, and this is definitely available in the Windows API, via DirectX as far as I remember.
Or does windows support this maybe in it's WinApi?
Probably, but to answer precisely, we need to understand better what you are looking to do.
Edit: In your particular use-case, I would have thought that making sounds or ejecting the CD/DVD drive may be a more suitable opton. It can be hard to overlay something on top of the graphics drawn by a game, because games often try to use as much as possible of the available graphics resource, and you will probably have a hard time finding a way that works even for the most simple use-cases - never mind something that works for multiple different categories of games using different drawing/engine/graphics libraries. I'm also not entirely sure it's anything to worry overly about, since modern CPU's are pretty tolerant to overheating, so the CPU will just slow down, possibly grind to a halt, but it will not break - even if you take the heatsink off, it won't go wrong [no, I don't suggest you try this!]
Every platform supports efficient raw pixel block transfer "aka BitBlt()", so if you really want to go to frame buffer level you can allocate a bitmap and use pointers to set its contents directly then with one line of code efficiently flip this memory chunk into video ram buffer. Of course it is not as efficient as working with PCI framebuffers directly, but on the other hand this approach (BitBlt) was fast enough even in Win95 days to port Wolfenstein 3d on Pentium CPU WITHOUT the use of WinG.
HOWEVER, a care must be taken while creating this bitmap to match its format (i.e. RGB 16 bits, or 32 bits etc...) with actual mode that device is in, otherwise the graphics sub-system will do a lengthy recoding/dithering which will completely kill your speed.
So depending on your goals, If you want a 3d game your performance will suck with this approach. If you want just to render some shapes and dont need more than 10-15fps - this will work without diving into any device-driver levels.
Here is a few tips for overlaying in Windows:
hdc = GetDC(0);//returns hdc for the whole screen and is VERY fast
You can take HDC for screen and do a BItBlt(hdc, ..... SRCCOPY) to flip blocks of raster efficiently. There are also pre-defined Windows Handles for desktop but I dont recall the exact mechanics but if you are on multiple monitors you can get HDC for each desktop, look at "GetDesktopWindow", "GetDC" and the like...
I'm currently in the process of designing and developing GUI's for some audio applications made in C++ (using the Juce framework).
So far I've been playing with using bitmap graphics to create custom sliders and dials, by using 'film strip' style images to animate the components (meaning when the user interacts with a slider it triggers a method that changes the offset of a film-strip image to change the components appearance). Depending on the size of the original image and the number of 'frames', the CPU usage level changes quite dramatically.
Firstly, what would be the most efficient bitmap file format to use in terms of CPU consumption? At the moment I'm using PNG images.
Secondly, would it be more efficient to use vector graphics for these kind of graphical components? I understand the main differences between bitmap and vector graphics, but I haven't found any information regarding their CPU usage levels with regard to GUI interaction.
Or would CPU usage be down to the particular methods/functions/libraries/frameworks being used?
Thanks!
Or would CPU consumption be down to the particular methods/functions/libraries/frameworks being used?
Any of these things could influence it.
Pixel based images might take a while to read off of disk the bigger they are. Compressed types might take more time to uncompress. Vector might take more time to render when are loaded.
That being said, I would definitely not expect that your choice of image type to have any impact on its performance. Since you didn't provide a code example it is hard to speculate beyond that.
In general, you would expect that the run-time costs of the images to happen when they are loaded. So whenever you create an image object. If you create an images all over the place, then maybe its expensive. It is possible that your film strip is recreating the images instead of loading them once and caching them.
Before choosing bitmap vs. vector graphics, investigate if your graphics processor supports vector or bitmap graphics. Some things take a long time to draw as vectors.
Have you tried double-bufferring?
This is where you write to a buffer in memory while the display (graphics processor) is loading another.
Load your bitmaps from the resource once. Store them as memory snapshots to avoid the additional cost of translating them from a format.
Does your graphic processor support "blitting"?
Blitting is where the graphics processor can copy a rectangular area in memory (bitmap) and display it along with apply optional operations before displaying (such as XOR with existing bits).
Summary:
To improve your rendering speed, only convert images from the file into a bitmap form once. Store this somewhere. Refer to this converted bitmap as needed. Next, investigate and implement double buffering. Lastly, investigate and use bit-blitting or blitting.
Other optimization rules apply here too, such as reviewing the design, removing requirements, loop unrolling, passing images via pointer vs. copying them, and reduce "if" statements by using boolean logic and Karnaugh (sp?) maps.
In general, calculations for rendering vector graphics are going to take longer than blitting a rectangular region of a bitmap to the screen. But for basic UI stuff, neither should be particularly intensive.
You probably should do some profiling. Perhaps you're redrawing much more frequently than necessary. Or perhaps the PNG is being decoded each time you try to draw from it. (I'm not familiar with Juce.)
For a straight Windows app, I'd probably render vector graphics into a device-dependent bitmap once on startup and then just blit from the bitmap to the screen. Using vector gives you DPI independence, and blitting from a device-dependent bitmap is about the fastest way to paint a block of pixels. I believe the color matching is done when you render to the device-dependent bitmap, so you don't even have the ICM overhead on the screen drawing.
Vector graphics was ditched long ago - bitmap graphics are more performant. The thing is that you can send a bitmap to the GPU once and then render it forever more by a simple copy.
Secondly, the GPU uses it's own texture compression. DirectX is DXT5, I believe, but when the GPU sees the texture, it doesn't care what you loaded it from.
However, a modern CPU even with a crappy integrated GPU should have absolutely no problem with simple GUI rendering. If you're struggling, then it's time to look again at the technique you're using. Perhaps your framework is slow or your use of it is suboptimal.
I was wondering if it was faster to render a single quad the size of the window with a texture the size of a window than to draw the bitmap directly to the window using double buffering coupled with the platform specific way of drawing to a window.
The initial setup for textures tends to be relatively slow, but once that's done the drawing is quite fast -- in a typical case where graphics memory is available, it'll upload the texture to the memory on the graphics cards during initial setup, and after that, all the drawing will happen from there. At the same time, that initial upload will also typically include full a full mipmap down to 1x1 resolution, so you're uploading a bit more than just the full-resolution texture.
With platform specific drawing, you usually don't have quite as much work up-front. If only part of the bitmap is visible, only the visible part will be uploaded. If the bitmap is going to be scaled, it'll typically scale it on the CPU and send it to the card at the current scale (and never upload anything resembling a mipmap). OTOH, virtually every time something needs to be redrawn, it'll end up re-sending the bitmap data for the newly exposed area. It doesn't take much of that to lose the (often minor anyway) advantage of minimizing what was sent to start with.
Using textures is usually a lot faster, since most native drawing APIs aren't hardware accelerated.
It will very probably depend on the graphics card and driver.