On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 19:35, Matteo Sisti Sette <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matteosistisette@gmail.com">matteosistisette@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
No I wan't, but I haven't really tried blob detection. I just tried some very basic image processing such as mixing two images, changing the colors, you know the basic stuff you can find in the example patches, and the CPU was already very loaded with relatively small images.<div class="im">
<br>
I was just expressing the fact that the power of manipulating raw pixels with matrices in a patching environment such as Pd results to me "frustratingly attractive", where the frustration comes from the fact that you can't achieve enough efficiency to manipulate images of "reasonable size" (where of course reasonable means reasonable to me in a given context, e.g. a 1024x768 image to be projected). But I think the limitation is mostly intrinsic in the fact of doing it in an "interpreted" environment.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br>I also feel the same issue, mixing 3 videos together through [gemframebuffer] with alpha effects bring my cpu up to 90% utilization (core2duo 1.66ghz) but I still need a lot of effects and stuff to be added.<br>
<br>If only puredata just used YUV by default internally for _everything_ so at least it would be a bit faster, and I think a lot more work can be done to get a better video performance. Maybe someone on the list has a nice list of semi-universal tips to make video patches run faster?<br>
<br>Or maybe for video puredata is just 'almost' fast enough with computers nowadays.. Can't imagine ever playing with GEM and pix_ stuff on a Pentium 3 for example. What I mean is, that puredata only recently has become a viable option for the stuff that you and I want to do with it?<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Something that would be great would be a "pd/gridflow-like" patching environment that would compile your patch into shaders and have the GPU make the computation - but in a completely invisible way ....<br>
<br>
Do you know if something like that already exists?</blockquote><div><br>Lol, nice holy grail, just sprinkle some fairydust over the patch and it will run on the GPU ;)<br><br>You can run GLSL shaders, but you need the know-how to make them. There are some people busy with making nice collections of premade shader-effects that you can just download and use. Soon i'll have some capable hardware for this and will let you know how it works out.<br>
<br>There is of course the completely seperate project of 'vvvv' which is also a dataflow language like puredata, but ment for video. Sadly this project is windows only afaik.<br></div></div><br>Soon I'll get some faster computers to develop more patches, so hopefully just throwing a lot more CPU against my problems will make them go away ;)<br>
<br>--<br>buZz<br><a href="http://puikheid.nl/">http://puikheid.nl/</a><br>