On 5/30/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">B. Bogart</b> <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org">ben@ekran.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hey all,<br><br>So I'm trying to seek 1 or 2 movie files, at different frames on 36<br>different objects. I was hoping I could put the 1 or 2 movie files into<br>RAM, and then have all 36 pix_film seek from RAM.<br><br>Seems if I send "RAM" to all the pix_film objects GEM tries to load them
<br>all into RAM, even though they are the same file.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">If I send ram to the first pix_film object the rest of the pix_film
<br>objects still seek from disk, not from the RAM copy.</blockquote><div><br>
Of course, those are all separate objects with their own set of memory - otherwise it would be an unusable mess.<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;">Could pix_film check to see if another pix_film has already loaded the<br>file into ram, and if it has map the frames to the same memory location,
<br>if it has not then load the file into RAM?</blockquote><div><br>
No, it would have to be some sort of new object that held a global pool
of Quicktime movie objects. I'm not sure how feasible it is
either.<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;">With many clips you just need an array of fast disks (potencially) but I<br>though RAM would be a great solution since I'm seeking the same file in
<br>many different locations at the same time.</blockquote><div><br>
With the usual professional formats (DV, HD, etc) the RAM limit on a process would be reached quite quickly. <br>
</div><br></div><br>