<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Bastiaan van den Berg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:buzz@spacedout.nl">buzz@spacedout.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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></div></div></blockquote><div><br>GEM on OSX and pdp on any platform do this. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>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></div></blockquote><div><br>I started doing 1920x1080 HD work using GEM on OSX in 2006 and never had performance problems. I had the engineers who write Final Cut Pro tell me that what I was doing was physically impossible with modern CPUs, yet it was done. At this point streaming raw video out of a 5D or P2 cam, recording it to disk while manipulating the video using shaders is the baseline for performance, not fantasy.<br>
<br><br></div></div>