[PD] opencv motion tracker external HELP!

[nosehair911 at bellsouth.net]

I dont think I quite understood.  I tried:

#define FRAMEOUT frame

IplImage *frame = 0;

x->x_outlet = outlet_new(&x->x_obj, &s_anything);
outlet_anything(x->x_outlet, FRAMEOUT);

with the same results.  Maybe someone can dumb it down for me?
Alain
> 
> From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> Date: 2007/05/29 Tue AM 10:40:29 EDT
> To: nosehair911 at bellsouth.net
> CC: Tim Boykett <tim at timesup.org>,   pd-list at iem.at
> Subject: Re: [PD] opencv motion tracker external HELP!
> 
> nosehair911 at bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Thanks for helping.  Well I basically have a rough sketch of all the objects but I am having a tough 
> > time with the outlet system.  In a nutshell opencv uses an image structure called "typedef struct 
> > _IplImage."  Acording to them "The structure IplImage came from Intel Image Processing Library 
> > where the format is native."  I can give you more information about it if you need it.  My problem is 
> > sending the result from IplImage to an outlet and being able to receive it from an inlet.  So far that 
is 
> > my bigest hurdle.  I have this code:
> > 
> > IplImage *frame = 0;
> > 
> > x->x_outlet = outlet_new(&x->x_obj, &s_anything);
> > outlet_anything(x->x_outlet, frame);
> > 
> > Obviously with more stuff in the middle but I keep getting this error from the compiler:
> 
> 
> whoa don't do that.
> 
> if you are sure that you have to send pointers around, then you should
> a) have a look at Gem (where this is done) or GridFlow and
> b) don't do it (Gem is using this for legacy reasons); really. even
> though pd has "pointers", they are not meant for passing arbitrary data
> around.
> 
> if you want to do it the clean way, you will have to create ids (numeric
> or symbolic), associate your data-chunks with ids, pass the ids through
> pd's messaging system and look them up at the receiving side.
> pdp does it like this.
> 
> an alternative might be mrpeach's "string/blob" patch, but then you
> would rely on a patched pd, which is not a very good idea.
> 
> if you are not sure, then i suggest to not do it that way (unless you
> want to spend some time in getting into coding)
> 
> 
> otoh, why don't you just use the Gem framework?
> i guess that you could fit the IplImage into an imageStruct with not
> much overhead (but then i don't know this structure; if it is
> fundamentally different from Gem's imageStruct you might lose everything
> you gained speedwise)
> 
> 
> 
> if nothing else works, it might be simplest to just write your own
> application (without pd) and send the data to pd via your favourite
> protocol (FUDI, OSC, SMTP...)
>