#Bmp badge software code#

Compare that to horizontal extensions, where you have to do that operation once per row because the existing data isn't contiguous in the new block. Extending an array vertically in any direction can be accomplished by allocating a new block and doing a single copy of the entire existing array to the appropriate offset in the new memory. Handle vertical and horizontal extensions differently. If extensions turn out to be really expensive, you could try one or both of these: (E.g., if you start a new bitmap at 1x1 and allocate a 9x9 array to hold it, the initial x and y offsets would be 4.) The trade-off here is having to do extra math during pixel access to apply the offset. If profiling reveals a need to keep the number of re-allocations down and you're not memory-constrained, consider over-allocating by a percentage in each direction and storing an offset to the origin. If profiling doesn't indicate that you're spending a lot of time at it, there's no need to refine it further.

#Bmp badge software code#

The absolute fastest way to do pixel access is a two-dimensional array of individually-addressable pixels.ДЇor extensions, start with a simple implementation that reallocates and copies every time (since you'll need that code anyway).

the performance of the extend* operations, and.

the performance of getPixel and setPixel,.

An analogous process can be used to map an array of arrays to an array. You can encode an int x,y pair as a single long. This saves up a significant amount of space, especially if the bitmap is mostly zeros. The 'zeros' can indicated by the absence of an entry.

If you use a Map-based data structure, you only need map entries for the 'ones'. If you use a Map-based data structure, you can finesse the problem of growing the bitmap by simply relocating the x,y coordinate arguments of the getPixel and setPixel calls. The down-side is that you use more space, but the proportion of wasted space drops as the bitmap gets bigger. ) you probably should grow the backing array by some number of bits / pixels each time to avoid having to shift the bits as you copy them. If you implement this as an array of some integral type (or an array of arrays of. Reallocating, copying and releasing is expensive. So especially if you go with the off-the-shelf solution, don't extend you buffer just by 1 pixel, because only one pixel was requested. Most vector implementations allocate twice their size, when it's exceeded.

This is rather memory intense, but significantly cuts allocation and copying costs. That would mean you'd simply allocate a bigger buffer and have the original drawn into it at the according coordinates.ДЄs a general strategy: When having a 'dynamically growing memory block', it is a good idea to allocate a multiple of it, once it is used up. They are actually quite good at drawing one 2D buffer into another. Off the shelfДЄnother solution might be to look at some graphics libraries. In fact for very sparse ones, a 'chunk size' of 1 is the best, rendering the 'chunks' themselves obsolete and reducing the data structure to an int map of an int map of pixels.

For dense bitmaps, a big chunk size is good, for sparse bitmaps a smaller chunk size is better. To my knowledge every decent language has one.ДЄlso you will have to play with the chunk size. Secondly it is based on the assumption, that you have a sufficiently fast and scalable implementation of Map. If (ret = null) row.set(x, ret = new Chunk(chunkSize)) ДЇor one, it creates chunks in getPixel (basically it would be fine to simply return 0 or so, if no chunks was defined for that position). If memory is not a very sparse resource, I consider working in bigger chunks.