Is there a way to write a BitmapEffect in 100% Managed Code? I know that it would run a lot slower than using unmanaged code, but I'd like to write a BitmapEffect but its been a long time since I've done any C++ programing, plus the application might have to run in partial trust (so unmanaged code won't be permissible). The effect is going to be run very rarely on static content. Simply getting the Bitmap of the rendered content and handing back a bitmap of the altered content would suffice.
Before you go that route, have you seen this:
GPU based effects
It's a series of articles about writing Effects (supported in .NET 3.5SP1) as fragment shaders that run on your GPU... Pretty neat stuff!
You can use as your starting point the RGBFilter - a custom bitmap effect sample, written in C++ and C#.
I am not sure you can implement custom bitmap effect in C# only, as it requires implementing some MIL interfaces, which might not be doable in C#. Though I might be wrong about that.
Related
I have a WPF application that acquires images from a camera, processes these images, and displays them. The processing part has become burdensome for the CPU, so I've looked at moving this processing to the GPU and running custom CUDA kernels against them. The basic process is as follows:
1) acquire image from camera
2) load image onto GPU
3) call CUDA kernel to process image
4) display processed image
A WPF-to-CUDA-to-Display Control strategy is what I'm trying to figure out.
It seems natural that once the image is loaded onto the GPU that it would not have to be unloaded in order to be displayed. I've read that this can be done with OpenGL, but do I really need to learn OpenGL and include it in my project in order to do a fast display of a CUDA-processed image?
I understand (I think) the issues of calling CUDA kernels from C#. My plan is to either build an unmanaged library around my CUDA calls, which I later wrap for C# -- OR -- try to decide on which one of the managed wrappers (managedCUDA, Cudafy, etc.) to try. I worry about using one of the prebuilt wrappers because they all appear to be lightly supported...but maybe I have the wrong impression.
Anyway, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed after days of researching the possible options. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
The process of taking a result of CUDA computation and using it directly on the device for a graphics activity is called "interop". There is OpenGL "interop" and there is DirectX "interop". There are plenty of CUDA sample codes demonstrating how to interact with computed images.
To go directly from computed data on the device, to display, without a trip to the host, you will need to use one of these 2 APIs (OpenGL or DirectX).
You mentioned two of the managed interfaces I've heard of, so it seems like you're aware of the options there.
If the processing time is significant compared to (much larger than) the time taken to transfer the image from host to device, you might consider starting out by just transferring the image from host to device, processing it, and then transferring it back, where you can then use the same plumbing you have been using to display it. You can then decide if the additional effort for interop is worth it.
If you can profile your code to figure out how long the image processing takes on the host, and then prototype something on the device to find out how much faster it is, that will be instructive.
You may find that the processing time is so long you can even benefit from the double-copy arrangement. Or you may find the processing time is so short on the host (compared to just the cost to transfer to the device) that the CUDA acceleration would not be useful.
WPF has a control named D3DImage to directly show DirectX content on screen and in the managedCuda samples package you can find a version of the original fluids sample from Cuda Toolkit using it (together with SlimDX). You don’t have to use managedCuda to realize Cuda in C#, but you can take it to see how things can be realized: managedCuda samples
Kind of like this unanswered question: Calling a method on screen refresh?
Instead of dealing specifically with C#, though, I want to know how one could possibly do this through any API exposed through C. I'm using GTK+ via D, but I'm okay with adding hooks to any other library exposing a C API.
Before anyone starts yelling at me about the applicability of this: I'm trying to perform visual stimulation using an LCD screen rather than a wall of LEDs attached to some crystal oscillator (it's easier to use readily available 59.94 Hz screens than constructing LED walls). To even begin to approach the flexibility provided by analog circuitry, though... no frame should be skipped, EVER (or at least only very very rarely).
New versions of GTK (3.8 onwards) introduced a GdkFrameClock API, for syncing drawing (of animations, etc) to vertical blanks. From a cursory look, it seems like it might be what you're after.
Docs: https://developer.gnome.org/gdk3/stable/gdk3-GdkFrameClock.html
a previous relevant question from me is here Reverse Engineering old paint programs
I have set up my base of operations here: http://animatorpro.org
wiki coming soon.
Okay, so now I have a 300,000 line legacy MSDOS codebase. It's sort of a "be careful what you wish for" situation. I am not an experienced C programmer. I'm not entirely inexperienced either, but for all intents and purposes I'm a noob to the language and in particular the intricacies of its libraries. I am especially ignorant of the vagaries of the differences between C programs written specifically for MSDOS and programs that are cross platform. However I have been studying this code base for over a year now, and this is what I know about Animator Pro:
Compilers and tools used:
Watcom C compiler
tcmake (make program from Turbo C)
386asm, a specialised assembler for the Phar Lap dos extender
and of course, the Phar Lap dos extender itself.
a selection of obscure dos utilities
Much of the compilation seems to be driven by batch files. Though I have obtained copies of all these tools, I have not yet succeeded at compiling it. (though I have compiled its older brother, autodesk animator original.
It's got a plugin system that replicates DLL before DLL's were available, based on REX. The plugin system handles:
Video Drivers (with a plethora of included VESA drivers)
Input drivers (including wacom tablets, and keyboards)
Drawing Tools
Inks (Like photoshop's filters, or blending modes)
Scripting Addons (essentially compiled scripts)
File formats
It's got its own script interpreter named POCO, based on the C language- The scripting language has enough power to do virtually all the things the plugin system can do- Just slower.
Given this information, this is my development plan. Please criticise this. The source code is available in the link above, so you can easily, if you are so inclined, assess the situation yourself.
Compile with its original tools.
Switch to using DJGPP, and make the necessary changes to get it to compile with that, plus the original assembler.
Include the Allegro.cc "Game" library, and switch over as much functionality to that library as possible- Perhaps by simply writing new video and input drivers that use the Allegro API. I'm thinking allegro rather than SDL because: there is a DOS version of Allegro, and fascinatingly, one of its core functions is the ability to play Animator Pro's native format FLIC.
Hopefully after 3, I will have eliminated most or all of the Assembler in the project. I say hopefully, because it's in an obscure dialect that doesn't assemble in any modern free assembler without significant modification. I have tried them all. Whatever is left gets converted to assemble in NASM, or to C code if I can define the assembler's actual function.
Switch the dos extender from Phar Lap to HX Dos http://www.japheth.de/HX.html, Which promises to replicate as much of the WIN32 api as possible. Then make all the necessary code changes for that to work.
Switch to the win32 version of Allegro.cc, assuming that the win32 version can run on top of HXDos. Make any further necessary changes
Modify the plugin system to use some kind of standard cross platform plugin library. What this would be, I have no idea. Maybe you can offer some suggestions? I talked to the developer who originally wrote the plugin system, and he said some of the things it does aren't possible on modern OS's because of segmentation restrictions. I'm not sure what this means, but I'm guessing it means all the plugins will need to be rewritten almost from scratch.
Magically, I got all the above done, and we can try and make it run in windows, osx, and linux, whilst dealing with other cross platform niggles like long file names, and things I haven't thought of.
Anyone got a problem with any of this? Is allegro a good choice? if not, why? what would you do about this plugin system? What would you do different? Is this whole thing foolish, and should I just rewrite it from scratch, using the original as inpiration? (it would apparently take the original developer "About a month" to do that)
One thing I haven't covered above is the text/font system. Not sure what to do about that, but Animator Pro has its own custom font format, but also is able to use Postscript Type 1 fonts, and some other formats.
My biggest concern with your plan, in a nutshell: Your approach seems to be to attempt to keep the whole enormous thing working at all times, tweaking the environment ever-further away from DOS. During each tweak to the environment, that means you will have approximately a billion subtle assumptions that might have broken at once, none of which you necessarily understand yet. Untangling them all at once will be incredibly painful.
If I were doing the port, my approach would be to disable as much code as possible to get SOMETHING running in a modern environment, and bring the parts back online, one piece at a time. Write a simple test harness program that loads a display driver and draws some stuff, and compile it for DOS to make sure you understand the interface. Then write some C code that implements the same interface, but with Allegro (or SDL or SFML), and make that program work under Windows or Linux. When the output differs, you have a simple test case to work from.
Your entire job on this port is swapping out implementations of various interfaces and functions with completely new ones. This is a job that unit testing excels at. Don't write any new code without a test of some kind that runs on the old code under DOS! Make your potential problems as small and simple as you possibly can. Port assembly code instead of rewriting it only if you're reasonably confident that it will actually make your job easier (ie, algorithmic stuff that compiles fine with few tweaks under NASM). Don't bite off a bigger piece than you can comfortably fit in your brain at once.
I, for one, look forward to seeing your progress! I think what you're attempting to do is great. Thanks for doing it.
Hmmm - I might approach it by writing an OpenGL video "driver" for it. and todays machines are fast enough with tons of ram that you could do all the pixel specific algorithms on main CPU into a back buffer and it would work. As the "generic" VGA driver just mapped the video buffer to a pointer this would be a place to start. There was a zoom mode in the UI so you can look at the pixels on a high res display.
It is often very difficult to take an existing non-trivial code base that wasn't written with portability in mind - you mention a few - and then try to make it portable. There will be a lot of problems on the way. It is probably a better idea to start from scratch and rewrite the code using the existing code as reference only. If you start from scratch you can leverage existing portable UI solution in your new project like Qt.
Have you ever obfuscated your code before? Are there ever legitimate reasons to do so?
I have obfuscated my JavaScript. It made it smaller, thus reducing download times. In addition, since the code is handed to the client, my company didn't want them to be able to read it.
Yes, to make it harder to reverse engineer.
To ensure a job for life, of course (kidding).
This is pretty hilarious and educational: How to Write Unmaintanable Code.
It's called "Job Security". This is also the reason to use Perl -- no need to do obfuscation as separate task, hence higher productivity, without loss of job security.
Call it "security through obsfuscability" if you will.
I don't believe making reverse engineering harder is a valid reason.
A good reason to obfuscate your code is to reduce the compiled footprint. For instance, J2ME appliactions need to be as small as possible. If you run you app through an obfuscator (and optimiser) then you can reduce the jar from a couple of Mb to a few hundred Kb.
The other point, nestled above, is that most obfuscators are also optimisers which can improve your application's performance.
Isn't this also used as security through obscurity? When your source code is publically available (javascript etc) you might want to at least it somewhat harder to understand what is actually occuring on the client side.
Security is always full of compromises. but i think that security by obscurity is one of the least effective methods.
I believe all TV cable boxes will have the java code obfuscated. This does make things harder to hack, and since the cable boxes will be in your home, they are theoretically hackable.
I'm not sure how much it will matter since the cable card will still control signal encryption and gets its authorization straight from the video source rather than the java code guide or java apps, but they are pretty dedicated to the concept.
By the way, it is not easy to trace exceptions thrown from an obfuscated stack! I actually memorized at one point that aH meant "Null Pointer Exception" for a particular build.
I remember creating a Windows Service for Online Backup application that was built in .NET. I could easily use either Visual Studio or tools like .NET Reflector to see the classes and the source code inside it.
I created a new Visual Studio Test application and added the Windows Service reference to it. Double clicked on the reference and I can see all the classes, namespaces everything (not the source code though). Anybody can figure out the internal working of your modules by looking at the class names. In my case, one such class was FTPHandler that clearly tells where the backups are going.
.NET Reflector goes beyond that by showing the actual code. It even has an option to Export the whole project so you get a VS project with all the classes and source code similar to what the developer had.
I think it makes sense to obfuscate, to make it atleast harder if not impossible for someone to disassemble. Also I think it makes sense for products involving large customer base where you do not want your competitors to know much about your products.
Looking at some of the code I wrote for my disk driver project makes me question what it means to be obfuscated.
((int8_t (*)( int32_t, void * )) hdd->_ctrl)( DISK_CMD_REQUEST, (void *) dr );
Or is that just system programming in C? Or should that line be written differently? Questions...
Yes and no, I haven't delivered apps with a tool that was easy decompilable.
I did run something like obfuscators for old Basic and UCSD Pascal interpreters, but that was for a different reason, optimizing run time.
If I am delivering Java Swing apps to clients, I always obfuscate the class files before distribution.
You can never be too careful - I once pointed a decent Java decompiler (I used the JD Java Decompiler - http://www.djjavadecompiler.com/ ) at my class files and was rewarded with an almost perfect reproduction of the original code. That was rather unnerving, so I started obfuscating my production code ever since. I use Klassmaster myself (http://www.zelix.com/klassmaster/)
I obfuscated code of my Android applications mostly. I used ProGuard tool to obfuscate the code.
When I worked on the C# project, our team used the ArmDot. It's licensing and obfuscation system.
Modern obfuscators are used not only to make hacking process difficult. They are able to protect programs and games from cheating, check licenses/keys and even optimize code.
But I don't think it is necessary to use obfuscator in every project.
It's most commonly done when you need to provide something in source (usually due to the environment it's being built in, such as systems without shared libraries, especially if you as the seller don't have the exact system being build for), but you don't want the person you're giving it to to be able to modify or extend it significantly (or at all).
This used to be far more common than today. It also led to the (defunct?) Obfuscated C Contest.
A legal (though arguably not "legitimate") use might be to release "source" for an app you're linking with GPL code in obfuscated fashion. It's source, it can be modified, it's just very hard. That would be a more extreme version of releasing it without comments, or releasing with all whitespace trimmed, or (and this would be pushing the legal grounds probably) releasing assembler source generated from C (and perhaps hand-tweaked so you can say it's not just intermediate code).
For a web project I need the possibility to generate jpg and animated gif images very fast. As server platform I will use Linux and the NekoVM (behind a apache via mod_tora). As there is no library for image generation for Haxe and neko I am about to write a own one.
Neko itself is written in c, and you can simply extend the VM writing shared libraries with c. At the moment we playing arround with libGD, which offers all the features we need (resizing, sampling, copying images, adding text, save as jpeg or animated gif) and of course a lot of stuff we don't need.
At the moment this works great, but it seems to be a little bit slow. Is there another popular open library that I could try to use for my purposes (and that is maybe faster)?
Have you tried Magick++ and/or MagickCore?
Your next best bet is to run NekoVM under pprof to figure out which function(s) are the most costly in libGD, and try to avoid or optimize your use of those by changing your calling code.
There is imlib2, I doubt that it support animated gif's.