IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Jul 21 21:21:19 CEST 2005
chris clepper wrote:
> I wrote an object called pix_record today that makes Quicktime movies on
> OSX. I went ahead and checked it into the main branch. I threw an
> #ifdef __APPLE__ around everything in the .h and .cpp file so it
> shouldn't mess up other platform compilations.
> The object is not complete but I wanted to work on it in more than one
> place so up it went. Surprisingly, the dialog box works although it
> never gets proper focus - just don't hit any of the buttons labeled
> 'Options...' in the compression settings and you'll be fine. I will
> hopefully have a more programmatic way to setup compression working
> soon, but it's going to take some unravelling of QT innards to get there.
just one question (that keeps me bothering with [pix_write] for a long,
long time): wouldn't it be better if [pix_record] would work on
pix-buffers rather than on the render-buffer ?
this basically means using 2 objects [pix_snapshot] (or probably some
improved version of it) and [pix_record] where now we only need 1 object.
but i have heard rumours of people who just use the pix-input
capabilities of Gem (admittedly not the real strength of Gem) and don't
care for texturing and the like; and want to directly record the pix-stream
with [pix_write] (and the current [pix_record]) they would have to go
through capturing-texturing-grabbing-recording, which works in theory,
but not if you want to record things while you are displaying something
different (e.g. to do large delay-lines)
apart from that it is really a long missing object.
> all platforms with the same object (like pix_film, but not pix_texture!).
More information about the GEM-dev