[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9077] image package: new function imfill.m

[Hartmut]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #9077 (project octave):

I've also done some quick timing testing on Matlab (not the same pc though)
with the test script of comment #5. 
Results:
* On Matlab imfill and bwfill have mostly the same speed compared to each
other. 
** For small images bwfill is faster by a factor of 2
** For large images bwfill is faster by a factor of 2.

* The Octave implementation is not much slower than the Matlab
implementation.
** For SMALL images Octave's bwfill is much faster than both Matlab commands,
** and Octave's imfill is slower than Matlab by factor of ~1.5.
** For LARGE images both Octave commands are faster than the Matlab version of
bwfill, 
** but (still for large images) both Octave's commands are slower than the
Matlab version of imfill by a factor of ~1.5).

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?9077>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/