[PD] pix_multiblob cpu usage

[chris clepper]

I ran the pix_multiblob example on the same 640x480 clip on CoreDuo, G5 and
Xeon CPUs at 2 Ghz and it destroys all of those processors.  I guess it was
designed to work on really low resolutions since none of the current CPUs
can handle full sized standard def video as the code is written.

If the code could be written without the numerous function calls and int to
float to int conversions in the processing loop it would be much faster.

On 5/14/07, nosehair911 at bellsouth.net <nosehair911 at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I tried to use the Gem from the latest pd extended autobuilds and I have
> also compiled my own from
> CVS with the same results.  If you can point me in the right direction on
> how to get this going I would
> apreciate it.  BTW I dont know any C or C+ but I am willing to give it a
> go.
> Thanks,
> Alain
> >
> > From: "chris clepper" <cgclepper at gmail.com>
> > Date: 2007/05/14 Mon AM 10:56:03 EDT
> > To: "nosehair911 at bellsouth.net" <nosehair911 at bellsouth.net>
> > CC: pd-list at iem.at
> > Subject: Re: [PD] pix_multiblob cpu usage
> >
> > pix_multiblob is not the most efficient code but it should run at that
> low
> > resolution.  Where did you get the GEM binary?  It could be built
> without
> > optimization.
> >
> > On 5/11/07, nosehair911 at bellsouth.net <nosehair911 at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I made a 400x300 motion JPEG-a movie 15 fps with 5 solid blue circles
> > > moving on a black background
> > > to test pix_mutiblob. I open it up with pix_film, flip it with
> pix_flip
> > > and send it to pix_multiblob.  I suddenly
> > > notices PD getting very, very slow.  When I look at the cpu usage in
> > > activity monitor (if you can believe
> > > activity monitor) I get 100-104% cpu usage.  I cant do anything else
> in PD
> > > because PD gets so slow.  I
> > > am using a dual 2Ghz G5 with ATI Radeon 9800 XT and 3GB of internal
> > > memory.  Is this normal? What
> > > can I do to lower cpu usage?  What else can I use within Gem to get
> the
> > > same results? I eventually want
> > > to be able to track 20-30 objects but It looks like it would be
> imposible
> > > at this rate.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alain
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20070514/ee4f0e9e/attachment.htm>