Blitter 80 fps @ 1024x800 YUV420

[jaggomiken]

Hi all,
I'm working on a video acquisition project for industrial application.
I need to capture, save and show 80 frames per second 800x1024 pixels
YUV420/422 and RGB24 images. We are planning to implement business
logic
with unmanaged C++ code and GUI with managed C# code.

What do you think ?
Is it a good choice ?
Do you think it is better to have all unmanaged C++ ?

Please help.
jaggomiken

[Ben Voigt]

"jaggomiken" <mi****@libero.itwrote in message
news:11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

Hi all,
I'm working on a video acquisition project for industrial application.
I need to capture, save and show 80 frames per second 800x1024 pixels
YUV420/422 and RGB24 images. We are planning to implement business
logic
with unmanaged C++ code and GUI with managed C# code.

Might work for capture and save.

>
What do you think ?
Is it a good choice ?
Do you think it is better to have all unmanaged C++ ?

If you need to show at that framerate, yes, probably better to stay pure
C++. Since you will already have the images in native format, you can't
really afford the conversion to GDI+. You can probably use some managed
code for reading XML configurations and such if you want, but you'll want to
drop into native code for high rate processing. Definitely stay away from
GDI+ for high frame rates.

>
Please help.
jaggomiken

[rob]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:40:53 -0600, "Ben Voigt" <rb*@nospam.nospam>
wrote:

>
"jaggomiken" <mi****@libero.itwrote in message
news:11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googleg roups.com...

>Hi all,
I'm working on a video acquisition project for industrial application.
I need to capture, save and show 80 frames per second 800x1024 pixels
YUV420/422 and RGB24 images. We are planning to implement business
logic
with unmanaged C++ code and GUI with managed C# code.

>If you need to show at that framerate, yes, probably better to stay pure
C++.

Ben, Couldn't he just PInvoke calls to Win32 BitBlt functions? That
would allow use of C# for the UI without having to use GDI+. Do you
see a problem with that approach?