Well, its been over 6 MONTHS since I pointed out this rather major problem
in glreadpixels, and so far no reaction?
Does anyone else find this a problem? without it we cannot use PBO (pixel
buffer objects), which is a major addition to the opengl spec, and gives
access to a whole range of important new functionality.
It really would be nice to stop having to use custom C python extensions
that need maintennce just to allow this one call..
>From: qzm <stuartaw@...>
> glReadPixels spec problem.
> Hello fellow pyOpengl Users.
> Perhaps I am missing something, but Ithink there is a serious issue
> with glReadPixels.
> When using glReadPixels in combinations with pixel buffer objects
> (PBOs) the last (C) argument is no longer the address of memory to
> move the data to, but an offset from the currently defined buffer
> object base.
> As a trivial example it is connon to use:
> Which causes the data to be copied to the base (0 offset) of the
> currently defined PBO.
> Of course, in pyOpengl this does not seem doable, as the buffers are
> handled internally, and the last argument is not exposed.
> Is it possible that we could have new versions of the affected calls
> exposed that do take the last argument?
> Perhaps a glReadPixelsB (for buffer) or something like that?
> (glWritePixels has the same limitation).
> PBOs are a very important feature for using openGL in image
> processing, so this would be a very useful addition.
> It would also allow glReadPixels to be used from python in situations
> where the overhead of the double data copy currently required for the
> (much easier to use) current implementation is too much whem moving
> through bounce buffers.
From: Ben Jefferys <benjamin.jefferys@im...> - 2005-09-28 08:17:59
> Well, its been over 6 MONTHS since I pointed out this rather major
> problem in glreadpixels, and so far no reaction?
Did you submit a bug report or feature request for it on SourceForge?
> It really would be nice to stop having to use custom C python
> extensions that need maintennce just to allow this one call..
It looks like you have the skills to fix/implement this yourself. Why
don't you do that and submit it as a patch?
You can contribute to the project through this site: