Hi guys, I used memoryImageSource to fill the screen in the past, today I tried the alternative--bufferedImage and I found it was a lot faster.
(almost gained 20% more framerates). I think I created some overhead when using memoryImageSource, in theory MemoryImageSource
should be almost as fast as bufferedImage, isnt it?
I have up loaded my demos with the source code:http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/87204/1-zip.html
(this one uses memoryImageSource)http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/87208/2-zip.html
(this one uses bufferedImage)
The only difference between the two versions is inside "gallery.java". I hope someone could help me find out
where I made those overheads or MemoryImageSource is just a slow ass compare to bufferedImage.