<P><BR><BR><BR>Thanx for your reply...</P>
<P>GEM seems to be an absolutely exciting plateform, as I tried messing around for several days.</P>
<P>You told me about PDP and GridFlow. Shame is that I'm only working on Windows XP. So, sorry for PDP.</P>
<P>But if I'm right I can run GridFlow under windows, no ?</P>
<P>Arf...<BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">> Message du 23/11/04 à 10h41<BR>> De : "Johannes M Zmoelnig" <ZMOELNIG@IEM.AT><BR>> A : tboulanger@voila.fr<BR>> Copie à : pd-list@iem.at<BR>> Objet : Re: [PD] Framestein and GEM<BR>> " <TBOULANGER@VOILA.FR>wrote:<BR>> > Hi listers !<BR>> > Hmmm, as everybody knows, PD is build for making really interesting audio stuff as video.<BR>> > So I had a look at GEM and Framestein and I have to say that I'm quiet lost :<BR>> > - Are GEM and Framestein utterly apart one from each other ? <BR>> yes<BR>> <BR>> > I mean is it possible to merge GEM objects with Framestein ones and conversely ? <BR>> no<BR>> <BR>> > - As for the rendering window : I noticed that GEM came with create/destroy objects and that Framestein came with its own rendering window : is it possible to have a unique window which displays both GEM and Framestein patches ?<BR>> no<BR>> <BR>> > - And in term of possibilities : eventually, which one of Framesteind and GEM is the most powerfull tool ? <BR>> this is a question i cannot answer.<BR>> <BR>> > Are they both specialised in a certain area ?<BR>> yes<BR>> Framestein is about image-processing (pixel-oriented, 2D)<BR>> Gem is about computer-graphics (vector-oriented, 3D, with some <BR>> possibilities to do pixel-processing)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > These questions may appear to be stupid but I have to hear about your opinions... (the goal : creating a video clip to accompaign a track I've done recently, an interactive one to say...)<BR>> <BR>> well, all pd-packages that have something to do with graphics (3D, 2D, <BR>> video,...) can be used to create "a video clip to accompaign a track".<BR>> you could even do this in plain pd (remember franks tgb-patch), it is <BR>> basically a matter of aesthetics.<BR>> <BR>> as for power of Framestein and Gem:<BR>> Framestein is Windos-only; Gem is available on win, lin and osX (older <BR>> versions are available for irix too)<BR>> I have no idea how "big" Framestein is, but Gem is contains about 400 <BR>> objects (half of which are rather useless if you don't know how to <BR>> program openGL in a patcher language)<BR>> Framestein allows multiple "frames" (even embedded into a patch), Gem <BR>> has only one single window (which will change in the future...)<BR>> Framestein needs your CPU, Gem needs a hw-accelerated graphics card.<BR>> Framestein allows you to use Photoshop-plugins, Gem does not (but has <BR>> some (un)common fx built in)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > PS : about PDP, is it a customed-video oriented version of PD ? I think this one doesn't exist on XP)<BR>> <BR>> no, pdp is just another library to do graphics.<BR>> it is (basically) oriented on doing video-processing, and is highly <BR>> optimized.<BR>> if you have ever heard of "forth", go pdp.<BR>> if not, there is a library called pidip (which is an extension to pdp) <BR>> which has some high-level video-effects plus a lot of other cool stuff <BR>> (like streaming, ...)<BR>> <BR>> and best: pdp/pidip are available (only) on linux+osX<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.<BR>> <BR>> do not forget GridFlow.<BR>> <BR>> > Thanx for your support !<BR>> <BR>> Gem, Framestein, pdp and GridFlow are really completely different <BR>> things, although all are dedicated to produce some "graphical" output.<BR>> <BR>> I think the biggest difference is not in possibilities but rather in the <BR>> "way of thinking".<BR>> so you should look at all of them carefully and then decide which fits <BR>> you and your need best.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> mfg.a.sdr<BR>> IOhannes<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>------------------------------------------<BR><BR>Faites un voeu et puis Voila ! www.voila.fr <BR><BR>