<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Hi Muralidhar, in Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Difference-between-ResizeCenter-and-ReSize-lt-interpolationType/m-p/1007335#M23231</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Muralidhar,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The ResizeCenter is the concatenation of two operations: scaling and shift. The function changes an image size and shifts the destination image relative to the specified point.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The main difference between ResizeCenter &amp;nbsp;and Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; scaling approaches is that the first one resizes a number of "distances" between image pixels while the second one considers pixels as "squares" and resizes a number of such "squares". For example, if we 2x increase 4x4 image, in the first case for image width = 4 we have 3 distances and applying scale=2 we'll have 6 distances and 7 pixels output while for the new approach we'll have 8 pixels. So most likely there are pixel differences between output images of the functions Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; and ResizeCenter.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Also &amp;nbsp;Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; API accepts the source and destination image sizes and it does not use scale factors explicitly.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;BR /&gt;
	Valentin&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:41:29 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Valentin_K_Intel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-02-16T14:41:29Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Difference between ResizeCenter and ReSize&lt;interpolationType&gt;</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Difference-between-ResizeCenter-and-ReSize-lt-interpolationType/m-p/1007334#M23230</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;We were currently using the intel IPP 7.1 but still using the depreciated method ResizeCenter.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; We were evaluating the intel IPP 8.2.1 and want to replace the resizecenter method with Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; my Q's here are &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;1) &amp;nbsp;can we achieve same &amp;nbsp;display as ResizeCenter using new method Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; or do we have any change when i compare pixel by &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;pixel for the resized images. This is needed to ensure that check correctness and we have already unit testers to check the output pixel by pixel.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; 2) I had also seen options for border interpolation which is not present in the old method resizecenter.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; 3) &amp;nbsp;Also we have been using the multi threaded version of static library in my project.. Now i have read somewhere that this multi threaded libraries are depreciated in 8.2.1 and kept under a folder in threaded folder. Does it mean that no new processor optimizations went into those multi threaded library version. Will it be any change in performance if &amp;nbsp;we still link to newer version of multi threaded libraries compared to single threaded library.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; 4) Also please tell me the difference between the ippresizeCenter,ippiResizeSqrPixle and ippiresize methods in terms of abilities and usage.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks &amp;amp; Regards,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;Muralidhar&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:12:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Difference-between-ResizeCenter-and-ReSize-lt-interpolationType/m-p/1007334#M23230</guid>
      <dc:creator>murali_523</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-02-12T03:12:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Muralidhar,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Difference-between-ResizeCenter-and-ReSize-lt-interpolationType/m-p/1007335#M23231</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Muralidhar,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The ResizeCenter is the concatenation of two operations: scaling and shift. The function changes an image size and shifts the destination image relative to the specified point.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;The main difference between ResizeCenter &amp;nbsp;and Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; scaling approaches is that the first one resizes a number of "distances" between image pixels while the second one considers pixels as "squares" and resizes a number of such "squares". For example, if we 2x increase 4x4 image, in the first case for image width = 4 we have 3 distances and applying scale=2 we'll have 6 distances and 7 pixels output while for the new approach we'll have 8 pixels. So most likely there are pixel differences between output images of the functions Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; and ResizeCenter.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Also &amp;nbsp;Resize&amp;lt;Interpolation&amp;gt; API accepts the source and destination image sizes and it does not use scale factors explicitly.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;BR /&gt;
	Valentin&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:41:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Difference-between-ResizeCenter-and-ReSize-lt-interpolationType/m-p/1007335#M23231</guid>
      <dc:creator>Valentin_K_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-02-16T14:41:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

