On 3/2/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">B. Bogart</b> <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org">ben@ekran.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I did try reloading the files once I get to this weird state, but it<br>makes not difference, still behaves the same.</blockquote><div><br>
I defintely have not seen that. Can you post the patch or a stripped
down version that gives you this problem? I can try to mock
something up here.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I'll try the RAM message, the videos are 2.5GB in total...</blockquote><div><br>
You will need 2.5 GB of RAM to load those. The QT call loads the
compressed movie into RAM and decompresses from memory. It is
quite efficient once loaded.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">is "ram" only in the CVS version or was it also in 0.90? I don't<br>remember seeing that message in the help. I guess I'll try to compile a
<br>Gem on that g5 machine. (Jamie, does the cmd line build automatically<br>optimize for g5 when its on a g5?)</blockquote><div><br>
Any CPU option you use will not affect Quicktime performance at
all. Maybe you have old or wrong versions of the QT stuff in your
build? Can you test just the 16 files playing back in 0.90?<br>
</div><br></div><br>