[PD] PDP vs Gridflow
odradek at videotron.ca
Sat Oct 25 00:50:44 CEST 2003
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:33:01PM -0400, Yves Degoyon wrote:
> i think you spend a lot of time explaining why Gridflow is better
> than the rest, and because it uses abstract types is not a good
> reason for me...
Being an abstract tool is actually what makes GF so interesting. GF is to
visual what MSP is to sound. Instead of an effect tools with presets, GF
is about the maths that makes all those vj softwares so cool. Sadly, most
users don't want to understand the maths because they're too busy playing
with "ready made" softwares. I know nothing about visual effect tools and
the vjing culture, but I'm pretty sure that GF can do lots of things that
most vj toys can't, like teaching "how things works" to those who care.
> well, what about spending this time actually improving Gridflow?
GF is improving. With a little less pragmatic attitude, your perception of
this "too asbtract" tool would also improve; you remind me of this old
movie, "La fête", where Tati played a postman fascinated with american
> we had so many mails explaining how Gridflow was so very well designed,
> sorry, i tried it once and thought that wasn't fitting any of my needs.
Mathieu can write as much as he want, even if GF didn't fit your needs the
first time you tried it. I seen worse on PD mailing list, just remember
the Nato spam...
> i'm actually looking for a video package that would be able to play
> 7 videos with an acceptable frame rate, do you think Gridflow can do
> this ? for now, i try to optimize PDP for being close to doing that
> ( but that xvideo thing is slow ).
Throw money at the problem: get a very fast computer, and buy the right
software, because there must be one out there; I've met plenty of artists
that just "do it", regardless of constraints and philosophical issues.
More information about the Pd-list