<?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 Igor, in Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134386#M25876</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Igor,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With all respect, that doesn't work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(1) If we set the ROI size to be an exact (un-enlarged) tile of the image, on the seams of the tiles it will be visible that there is no Wiener Filtering at the edges of the tiles;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(2) If we set the ROI size to be enlarged at the in-memory sides&amp;nbsp;of the tiles, we have concurrent access of several threads to the same data; which is a recipe for disaster.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:26:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-03-02T16:26:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Bug in ippiGrayErodeBorder</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134381#M25871</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The IPP Developer Reference documents&amp;nbsp;that the border parameter of the&amp;nbsp;functions ippiGrayErodeBorder_8u_C1R and ippiGrayErodeBorder_32f_C1R accepts&amp;nbsp;ippBorderRepl as the only type of border.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, for application threading (which is what Intel wants us to do, for mysterious reasons) ippBorderRepl&amp;nbsp;must be combined with a mask of&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemTop,&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemBottom,&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemLeft and&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemRight, depending on the location of the tile to be processed. But when&amp;nbsp;ippBorderRepl is combined with&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemTop,&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemBottom,&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMemLeft or ippBorderInMemRight,&amp;nbsp;ippiGrayErodeBorder_8u_C1R and&amp;nbsp;ippiGrayErodeBorder_32f_C1R return errror&amp;nbsp;ippStsBadArgErr (=-5).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consequently,&amp;nbsp;ippiGrayErodeBorder can not be application-threaded.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now that we are at it, I wonder why there is no&amp;nbsp;ippiGrayErodeBorder_16u_C1R variant.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2020 18:01:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134381#M25871</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-01T18:01:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>which version of ipp are you</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134382#M25872</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;which version of ipp are you talking about?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 02:02:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134382#M25872</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gennady_F_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T02:02:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I checked version IPP 9.0,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134383#M25873</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I checked version IPP 9.0, 2018-2 and the bug fix notes. There is no mentioning that this would have been fixed since.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 07:55:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134383#M25873</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T07:55:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Same problem with</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134384#M25874</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Same problem with&amp;nbsp;ippiFilterWiener. This function doesn't even have an IppiBorderType parameter. Consequently, no&amp;nbsp;ippBorderInMem&amp;nbsp;mask can be passed for individual tiles. And therefore&amp;nbsp;ippiFilterWiener can not be application-threaded.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:35:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134384#M25874</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T15:35:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Adriaan van Os,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134385#M25875</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Adriaan van Os,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ippiFilterWiener is based on ROI concept and therefore can be easily application-threaded. ROI concept assumes that all required for operation pixels are available in the memory - therefore it is default implementation of the Border In Mem. The staring point of Wiener filtering operation is calculated as&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; strtSrc = (Ipp8u*)pSrc - ( mask.height&amp;nbsp;- anchor.y - 1 ) * srcStep -&amp;nbsp;( mask.width&amp;nbsp;- anchor.x - 1 );&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;for 8u_C1R image/block/chunk/tile.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;regards, Igor&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:46:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134385#M25875</guid>
      <dc:creator>Igor_A_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T15:46:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Igor,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134386#M25876</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Igor,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With all respect, that doesn't work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(1) If we set the ROI size to be an exact (un-enlarged) tile of the image, on the seams of the tiles it will be visible that there is no Wiener Filtering at the edges of the tiles;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(2) If we set the ROI size to be enlarged at the in-memory sides&amp;nbsp;of the tiles, we have concurrent access of several threads to the same data; which is a recipe for disaster.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:26:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134386#M25876</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T16:26:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sorry, you are right, I</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134387#M25877</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Sorry, you are right, I withdraw my previous comment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 16:29:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134387#M25877</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T16:29:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Igor,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134388#M25878</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Igor,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;OK, tiling for&amp;nbsp;ippiFilterWiener works. Still, for large kernel sizes (say 39), is&amp;nbsp;ippiFilterWiener an approximation&amp;nbsp;or exact ? And how could it be so fast if it is exact ? The&amp;nbsp;ippiFilterWiener function doesn't seem to be completely&amp;nbsp;size-independent in all cases.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan &amp;nbsp;van Os&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 15:25:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134388#M25878</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-03T15:25:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Adriaan van Os,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134389#M25879</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Adriaan van Os,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ippiFilterWiner is implemented absolutely in the same way as in Matlab.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;regards, Igor&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 18:14:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134389#M25879</guid>
      <dc:creator>Igor_A_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-03T18:14:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I will reimplement the</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134390#M25880</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I will reimplement the WienerFilter,&amp;nbsp;compare the results and get back.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adriaan van Os&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2020 03:12:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Bug-in-ippiGrayErodeBorder/m-p/1134390#M25880</guid>
      <dc:creator>Adriaan_van_Os</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-04T03:12:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

