On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Patrice Colet <<a href="mailto:pat@mamalala.org">pat@mamalala.org</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi, it's possible to render on a video file the texture drawn into a<br>
geo object, but the quality is always poor whatever codec we use (even<br>
uncompressed files), that can be useful for having poor animated<br>
textures, but anyway the quality is never as good as we can get when we<br>
render into picture files (isn't it?).<br>
</blockquote><div><br>The contents of the framebuffer are exactly what you see onscreen. I don't understand what is 'poor' about the image being read back.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
We can render framebuffer into picture files with the help of<br>
[pix_write], but I don't know any simple solution yet to render directly<br>
into pict files what we can get with the 'unstable' [pix_record].</blockquote><div><br>pix_record on OSX is extremely well tested. I've recorded in excess of one million files with it.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
So my question that will certainly stay unanswered is/<br>
<br>
What about adding a simple option to [pix_write] for rendering into<br>
picture files only the texture created by a gemchain instead of the<br>
framebuffer? </blockquote><div><br>pix_write should just write the pix buffer to a file and not also have pix_snap functionality embedded in it. Unfortunately doing this would break a lot of patches. Maybe pix_image_write would be an acceptable option.<br>
</div></div><br>