Forums > Jitter

jit.gl.slab on MacBook (Intel GMA950)

January 10, 2007 | 6:17 pm

Hi there,

I’ve just gotten a MacBook; it’s not my primary Jitter machine, but I’m trying to see what I can get working on it. I’m having a lot of trouble running shaders, and I suspect this may not be the capabilities of the machine so much as shader instructions that require some tweaks.

Easily reproduced, for instance: the 42jSlab-compositeDV example doesn’t seem to work at all:

jit.gl.pbuffer: error binding texture: GL Error: Invalid operation
error: jit.gl.texture: unable to create texture!

I have a similar shader of my own returning these errors:
error: — START GLSL INFO LOG: fp —
ERROR: 0.17: ‘output’: Reserved word.
ERROR 0:17: ‘output’: syntax error parse error
ERROR: Parser found no code to compile in source strings.

… I can provide that shader code if interested; it’s just based on the 4waymix example.

Suggestions? Workarounds for compatibility? (Maybe switching to software execution?)

Peter


January 10, 2007 | 6:53 pm

Hi Peter,

I’m not sure about the first problem, but the fix for your shader is
an easy one, however. Open the shader file and replace the word
"output" with "myoutput" or something else. I believe that this was
solved in the 4waymix example in the 1.6.2 or 1.6.3 beta download,
but perhaps we overlooked it. Long story short, the Cg GLSL compiler
used before 10.4.3 was more relaxed than the Apple GLSL compiler we
now use under 10.4.3.

For the first problem, let us know waht version of the app you’re
running

Have a good talk! (starts in less than 10 minutes I think…down to
the wire)

Best,
Joshua

On Jan 10, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Peter Kirn wrote:

>
> Hi there,
>
> I’ve just gotten a MacBook; it’s not my primary Jitter machine, but
> I’m trying to see what I can get working on it. I’m having a lot of
> trouble running shaders, and I suspect this may not be the
> capabilities of the machine so much as shader instructions that
> require some tweaks.
>
> Easily reproduced, for instance: the 42jSlab-compositeDV example
> doesn’t seem to work at all:
>
> jit.gl.pbuffer: error binding texture: GL Error: Invalid operation
> error: jit.gl.texture: unable to create texture!
>
> I have a similar shader of my own returning these errors:
> error: — START GLSL INFO LOG: fp —
> ERROR: 0.17: ‘output’: Reserved word.
> ERROR 0:17: ‘output’: syntax error parse error
> ERROR: Parser found no code to compile in source strings.
>
> … I can provide that shader code if interested; it’s just based
> on the 4waymix example.
>
> Suggestions? Workarounds for compatibility? (Maybe switching to
> software execution?)
>
> Peter


January 10, 2007 | 9:17 pm

Peter Kirn skrev:
> Hi there,
>
> I’ve just gotten a MacBook; it’s not my primary Jitter machine, but I’m trying to see what I can get working on it. I’m having a lot of trouble running shaders, and I suspect this may not be the capabilities of the machine so much as shader instructions that require some tweaks.
>
Peter,

I have written to this list reg. my own machine this week, it has the
very same graphics chip, and so far it seems it does not support openGL
above version 1.2. I guess you could look in the Jitter archives to find
that thread started by me.

I would love to be proven wrong, but it seems we are out of luck,
regarding shaders…Hence my post on CreateDigitalNoise regarding a new
openGL machine for running Jitter ;-)

Andreas.


January 10, 2007 | 9:53 pm

Hi Joshua,

Yes, fortunately that wasn’t part of today’s demonstration. I’ve been known to procrastinate, but not that much. ;)

That was an obvious fix; sorry … maybe part of my Macworld coma which also made me neglect to include a version #:

I’m on Jitter 4.6.2.

Andreas, I can’t find the other thread; can you send a link? I do think the MacBook has potential as a Jitter machine, depending on what you’re trying to do. And certainly, the GMA950 is all over the place on both Mac and PC, so it will at least be useful to know what works and what doesn’t. Everyone else will just have to shell out for the X1600/MBP, but I’d make *real* sure you want to spend the extra cash for a video card (or maybe the bigger screen, FW800, ExpressCard slots).

I also don’t expect Apple will upgrade the MacBook graphics subset any time soon. The next step up (ATI X1300 / NVIDIA 7300) seems to have a tax on battery life and isn’t a huge upgrade, and Apple likes their price point and the ability to differentiate the MacBook and mini from the "pro" machines (basically, you can’t run Motion). Motion issues aside, Quartz Composer runs quite elegantly on MacBook/mini, which could also be a great way to build Core Image plug-ins for Jitter. (Haven’t had much time to do this yet, but I plan to leave some CI dev time in the coming months, especially now that I have a good mobile machine for it.)


January 10, 2007 | 10:25 pm

Peter Kirn skrev:
> Andreas, I can’t find the other thread; can you send a link?

Ooops, surely:

http://www.cycling74.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&th=23723

I remembered wrong – I can handle openGL 1.4, apparently. Right now it
depresses me a bit that my 3 year old ibm handles openGL better than my
brand new dualcore machine :-/

Cheers,
Andreas.


January 10, 2007 | 10:48 pm

Ah, yes, according to Intel:
"OpenGL* 1.4 support plus ARB_vertex_buffer and EXT_shadow_funcs extensions and TexEnv shader caching"

It’s a much better Windows card, ironically: DirectX 9 + Shader Model 2.0. Seems Intel skimped the OpenGL support. This is the problem with Apple using what is essentially PC hardware. (although a lot of us use OpenGL on PC, too, of course!)

I’m still not sure that answers all of these problems, though … particularly reading through some of your issues.


January 12, 2007 | 3:50 am

I’m in the market for a Macbook too. I can’t quite justify the price
jump to a MBP just for the GPU – the size increase isn’t a plus for me
either. So this thread is very interesting to me, but I recall this thread:

http://www.cycling74.com/forums/index.php?t=msg&goto=84967&rid=0&S=0b0188765e9b4b738a3a248e584583f7&srch=gma#msg_84967

Where vade mentioned that the GMA950 in the Mac mini can do some
lightweight shader processing ok in Jitter. I’m always interested in
squeezing every cycle available out of the machine, when possible. Any
other thoughts?

-Tim

Andreas Wetterberg wrote:
> Peter Kirn skrev:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I’ve just gotten a MacBook; it’s not my primary Jitter machine, but
>> I’m trying to see what I can get working on it. I’m having a lot of
>> trouble running shaders, and I suspect this may not be the
>> capabilities of the machine so much as shader instructions that
>> require some tweaks.
>>
> Peter,
>
> I have written to this list reg. my own machine this week, it has the
> very same graphics chip, and so far it seems it does not support openGL
> above version 1.2. I guess you could look in the Jitter archives to find
> that thread started by me.
>
> I would love to be proven wrong, but it seems we are out of luck,
> regarding shaders…Hence my post on CreateDigitalNoise regarding a new
> openGL machine for running Jitter ;-)
>
> Andreas.


January 15, 2007 | 4:03 am

Well, worth considering if you’re doing heavy graphics work is the refurb MBP, which is running as little as $1300. This could easily be worth it if you’re doing GPU-bound work.

I think it depends entirely on what you’re doing. I’ve been running this through more shaders and have been very impressed with the results. Video shaders seem to work quite well, for instance, as does simple geometry (actually, I’m able to run some pretty serious nurbs through with no problem, so we’re talking really complex geometry). I can verify what vade says. I think the main issue is if you’re doing complex geometry or anything with OpenGL 2. (That means you’ll also be left out of the OpenGL 2.1 party with Leopard … though I wonder, will the X1600, too?)

If you’re just running video mixing, for instance, MacBook might be just fine, even with some shader processing. (Working just fine for me!)

I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on visual stuff. I still wish Apple had a portable machine with video slots, and I doubt we’ll ever see that.


January 15, 2007 | 8:17 am

>
> I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on visual stuff.
> I still wish Apple had a portable machine with video slots, and I doubt
> we’ll ever see that.

Gideon posted this awhile ago, its an extrenal gpu solution.
http://www.fareastgizmos.com/computing/asus_xg_station_worlds_first_external_graphics_card_station_for_notebook_computers.php
should be mac compatible…


January 15, 2007 | 10:20 pm

indeed, I heard about this – "‘should’ be mac compatible" is always a
dubious statement, however :) and the macbook unfortunately doesn’t
have the card slot. :(

On 15-Jan-07, at 3:17 AM, yair reshef wrote:

>
>
> I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on visual
> stuff. I still wish Apple had a portable machine with video slots,
> and I doubt we’ll ever see that.
>
> Gideon posted this awhile ago, its an extrenal gpu solution.
> http://www.fareastgizmos.com/computing/
> asus_xg_station_worlds_first_external_graphics_card_station_for_notebo
> ok_computers.php
> should be mac compatible…
>
>


January 15, 2007 | 10:21 pm

Well this is good news. I definitely don’t need to do anything too
heavy – having no shader support whatsoever was my fear. Thanks!

On 14-Jan-07, at 11:03 PM, Peter Kirn wrote:

>
> Well, worth considering if you’re doing heavy graphics work is the
> refurb MBP, which is running as little as $1300. This could easily
> be worth it if you’re doing GPU-bound work.
>
> I think it depends entirely on what you’re doing. I’ve been running
> this through more shaders and have been very impressed with the
> results. Video shaders seem to work quite well, for instance, as
> does simple geometry (actually, I’m able to run some pretty serious
> nurbs through with no problem, so we’re talking really complex
> geometry). I can verify what vade says. I think the main issue is
> if you’re doing complex geometry or anything with OpenGL 2. (That
> means you’ll also be left out of the OpenGL 2.1 party with
> Leopard … though I wonder, will the X1600, too?)
>
> If you’re just running video mixing, for instance, MacBook might be
> just fine, even with some shader processing. (Working just fine for
> me!)
>
> I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on visual
> stuff. I still wish Apple had a portable machine with video slots,
> and I doubt we’ll ever see that.


January 15, 2007 | 11:47 pm

Actually, Peter;
Which shaders did you have running? I’d like to do some more tests here,
before springing for an SFF PC myself – been eyeing that option for at
least 6 months.
All the geometry objects works just fine here, too, by the way.

Cheers,
Andreas.
Timothy Sutton skrev:
> Well this is good news. I definitely don’t need to do anything too
> heavy – having no shader support whatsoever was my fear. Thanks!
>
> On 14-Jan-07, at 11:03 PM, Peter Kirn wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, worth considering if you’re doing heavy graphics work is the
>> refurb MBP, which is running as little as $1300. This could easily be
>> worth it if you’re doing GPU-bound work.
>>
>> I think it depends entirely on what you’re doing. I’ve been running
>> this through more shaders and have been very impressed with the
>> results. Video shaders seem to work quite well, for instance, as does
>> simple geometry (actually, I’m able to run some pretty serious nurbs
>> through with no problem, so we’re talking really complex geometry). I
>> can verify what vade says. I think the main issue is if you’re doing
>> complex geometry or anything with OpenGL 2. (That means you’ll also
>> be left out of the OpenGL 2.1 party with Leopard … though I wonder,
>> will the X1600, too?)
>>
>> If you’re just running video mixing, for instance, MacBook might be
>> just fine, even with some shader processing. (Working just fine for me!)
>>
>> I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on visual
>> stuff. I still wish Apple had a portable machine with video slots,
>> and I doubt we’ll ever see that.


January 16, 2007 | 2:13 am

I wonder, Ive been pondering setting up a Wiki for Max/MSP/Jitter ,
errata, solutions to common problems, etc. It might be a nice
addition to list openGL supported cards/shaders, etc in a wiki format
so others could easily edit and update their findings.

Would the community be interested in this, it would be nice to have
it on max objects though. Ive contacted the hosts off list. I think
this would be really nice, and could help cycling out as well if used/
implemented properly.

Thoughts?

On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Andreas Wetterberg wrote:

> Actually, Peter;
> Which shaders did you have running? I’d like to do some more tests
> here, before springing for an SFF PC myself – been eyeing that
> option for at least 6 months.
> All the geometry objects works just fine here, too, by the way.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas.
> Timothy Sutton skrev:
>> Well this is good news. I definitely don’t need to do anything
>> too heavy – having no shader support whatsoever was my fear. Thanks!
>>
>> On 14-Jan-07, at 11:03 PM, Peter Kirn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, worth considering if you’re doing heavy graphics work is
>>> the refurb MBP, which is running as little as $1300. This could
>>> easily be worth it if you’re doing GPU-bound work.
>>>
>>> I think it depends entirely on what you’re doing. I’ve been
>>> running this through more shaders and have been very impressed
>>> with the results. Video shaders seem to work quite well, for
>>> instance, as does simple geometry (actually, I’m able to run some
>>> pretty serious nurbs through with no problem, so we’re talking
>>> really complex geometry). I can verify what vade says. I think
>>> the main issue is if you’re doing complex geometry or anything
>>> with OpenGL 2. (That means you’ll also be left out of the OpenGL
>>> 2.1 party with Leopard … though I wonder, will the X1600, too?)
>>>
>>> If you’re just running video mixing, for instance, MacBook might
>>> be just fine, even with some shader processing. (Working just
>>> fine for me!)
>>>
>>> I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on
>>> visual stuff. I still wish Apple had a portable machine with
>>> video slots, and I doubt we’ll ever see that.
>

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


January 16, 2007 | 8:57 am

i++

On 1/16/07, vade wrote:
>
> I wonder, Ive been pondering setting up a Wiki for Max/MSP/Jitter ,
> errata, solutions to common problems, etc. It might be a nice addition to
> list openGL supported cards/shaders, etc in a wiki format so others could
> easily edit and update their findings.
>
> Would the community be interested in this, it would be nice to have it on
> max objects though. Ive contacted the hosts off list. I think this would be
> really nice, and could help cycling out as well if used/implemented
> properly.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Andreas Wetterberg wrote:
>
> Actually, Peter;
> Which shaders did you have running? I’d like to do some more tests here,
> before springing for an SFF PC myself – been eyeing that option for at
> least 6 months.
> All the geometry objects works just fine here, too, by the way.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas.
> Timothy Sutton skrev:
>
> Well this is good news. I definitely don’t need to do anything too heavy
> – having no shader support whatsoever was my fear. Thanks!
>
> On 14-Jan-07, at 11:03 PM, Peter Kirn wrote:
>
>
> Well, worth considering if you’re doing heavy graphics work is the refurb
> MBP, which is running as little as $1300. This could easily be worth it if
> you’re doing GPU-bound work.
>
> I think it depends entirely on what you’re doing. I’ve been running this
> through more shaders and have been very impressed with the results. Video
> shaders seem to work quite well, for instance, as does simple geometry
> (actually, I’m able to run some pretty serious nurbs through with no
> problem, so we’re talking really complex geometry). I can verify what vade
> says. I think the main issue is if you’re doing complex geometry or anything
> with OpenGL 2. (That means you’ll also be left out of the OpenGL 2.1 party
> with Leopard … though I wonder, will the X1600, too?)
>
> If you’re just running video mixing, for instance, MacBook might be just
> fine, even with some shader processing. (Working just fine for me!)
>
> I’m biased, though, a I have an SFF PC for heavy-lifting on visual stuff.
> I still wish Apple had a portable machine with video slots, and I doubt
> we’ll ever see that.
>
>
>
>
> *v a d e //*
>
> *www.vade.info*
> *abstrakt.vade.info*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


January 16, 2007 | 8:56 pm

January 16, 2007 | 9:20 pm

A wiki sounds like a great idea to me! I think it’d be especially helpful for the OpenGL stuff — and of course, vade, with all you’ve got going with v001, a lot of the issues will overlap.

Now I have to actually go and be systematic about running through the shaders. Honestly, all the shaders themselves seem to be working … just occasionally having trouble binding textures.


January 16, 2007 | 9:45 pm

I’m sure the shaders will work if the graphics card and drivers
support GL_ARB_vertex_shader and GL_ARB_fragment_shader. The
difference with the intel chip is that much of the shader computation
will be done on the CPU instead of the GPU with an nVidia or ATI
graphics card.

wes


January 16, 2007 | 9:48 pm

What about the cf.blur.jxs shader we had issues with? or was that a
texture binding issue as well?

On Jan 16, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Peter Kirn wrote:

>
> A wiki sounds like a great idea to me! I think it’d be especially
> helpful for the OpenGL stuff — and of course, vade, with all
> you’ve got going with v001, a lot of the issues will overlap.
>
> Now I have to actually go and be systematic about running through
> the shaders. Honestly, all the shaders themselves seem to be
> working … just occasionally having trouble binding textures.

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info


Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)