Closed luisremis closed 5 years ago
I don't see new tests for checking the copy parameters. Are our current tests sufficient to make sure we are not losing image content anywhere? Our typical checks involve metadata verification. I guess that concern applies to the old code too but just thought of it now.
What are the pros/cons of merging the ImageData/Image classes? That code was reviewed well back when and this change kind of breaks consistency across how video and descriptors were structured. Is that not true?
What are the pros/cons of merging the ImageData/Image classes? That code was reviewed well back when and this change kind of breaks consistency across how video and descriptors were structured. Is that not true?
These changes have been moved to another branch and will be part of a future pull request
I don't see new tests for checking the copy parameters. Are our current tests sufficient to make sure we are not losing image content anywhere? Our typical checks involve metadata verification. I guess that concern applies to the old code too but just thought of it now.
We have tests for both, the metadata an pixels. We have many tests that check every single pixel of the image and video and compare it with direct OpenCV results. The copies in the images are tests through the video implementation that is using those copy and move constructors.
All tests are passing.
All comments applied, all tests passing, noticeable improvement on video performance by avoing copies. Same should be good images that is now avoiding multiple copies. looks good to go!
Optimized video and image code, avoiding copies of cvmats. This increase performance of video read and several image operations by up to 25%.