*/
const uint patch_size = 12;
-const uint num_iterations = 16;
+const uint num_iterations = 8;
in vec2 flow_tc;
-in vec2 patch_bottom_left_texel; // Center of bottom-left texel of patch.
+in vec2 patch_center;
out vec3 out_flow;
uniform sampler2D flow_tex, grad0_tex, image0_tex, image1_tex;
-uniform vec2 image_size, inv_image_size, inv_prev_level_size;
+uniform vec2 inv_image_size, inv_prev_level_size;
void main()
{
- // Lock patch_bottom_left_texel to an integer, so that we never get
- // any bilinear artifacts for the gradient.
- vec2 base = (round(patch_bottom_left_texel * image_size - vec2(0.5, 0.5)) + vec2(0.5, 0.5))
+ vec2 image_size = textureSize(image0_tex, 0);
+
+ // Lock the patch center to an integer, so that we never get
+ // any bilinear artifacts for the gradient. (NOTE: This assumes an
+ // even patch size.) Then calculate the bottom-left texel of the patch.
+ vec2 base = (round(patch_center * image_size) - (0.5f * patch_size - 0.5f))
* inv_image_size;
// First, precompute the pseudo-Hessian for the template patch.
// Also reject if the patch goes out-of-bounds (the paper does not mention this,
// but the code does, and it seems to be critical to avoid really bad behavior
// at the edges).
+ vec2 patch_center = (base * image_size - 0.5f) + patch_size * 0.5f + u;
if (length(u - initial_u) > (patch_size * 0.5f) ||
- u.x < -(patch_size * 0.5f) ||
- image_size.x - u.x < -(patch_size * 0.5f) ||
- u.y < -(patch_size * 0.5f) ||
- image_size.y - u.y < -(patch_size * 0.5f)) {
+ patch_center.x < -(patch_size * 0.5f) ||
+ image_size.x - patch_center.x < -(patch_size * 0.5f) ||
+ patch_center.y < -(patch_size * 0.5f) ||
+ image_size.y - patch_center.y < -(patch_size * 0.5f)) {
u = initial_u;
mean_diff = first_mean_diff;
}