Re:

[Bill Denney]

address@hidden wrote:
> Quoting bharat pathak <address@hidden>:
>   
> >    My functions are still consuming 1.3 seconds, which is
> >    prohibitively high if someone intends to process 200
> >    images.
> >     
>
> I've tried your code on my machine at work, and it returns almost  
> instantly. So either my machine is much faster than yours, or  
> something seems broken with your setup. Matrix based code can be  
> fairly memory intensive, so perhaps this is your problem? If you  
> store, say, 200 images in memory at the same time, this could affect  
> performance quite a bit.

Hi,

How large are the images and how fast is the computer?  If you have 
large images or slow computers, it could definitely take a while, and 
you're not likely to get much faster than Jaroslav's solution.  The only 
speed-up then would be if you aren't using an optimized BLAS library 
(the general suggestion that I see on the list is ATLAS optimized for 
your particular processor).

Have a good day,

Bill