peterkirn

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 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?)

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.

jit-gl-slab-on-macbook-intel-gma950

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 

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

Have a good talk! (starts in less than 10 minutes I think...down to 

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

> 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 

> Easily reproduced, for instance: the 42jSlab-compositeDV example 

> 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 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 

> Suggestions? Workarounds for compatibility? (Maybe switching to 

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)

>
> 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


> 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.

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 

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 

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 ;-)

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 #:

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.)

> Andreas, I can't find the other thread; can you send a link?

https://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 

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

Ooops, surely:
https://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 :-/

"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.

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

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


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:

https://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 

>> 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 

> 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 

> 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 

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:

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?

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.


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.

> 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

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

>
> 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...

indeed, I heard about this - "'should' be mac compatible" is always a 

dubious statement, however :) and the macbook unfortunately doesn't 

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, 

> Gideon posted this awhile ago, its an extrenal gpu solution.

> asus_xg_station_worlds_first_external_graphics_card_station_for_notebo 

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. :(

>
>
> 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...
>
>


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 

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

>
> 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.


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 

All the geometry objects works just fine here, too, by the way.

> 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, 

>> 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, 

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.


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/ 

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

> 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 

> All the geometry objects works just fine here, too, by the way.

>> 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 

>>> 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.

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.

> 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.
>

> 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

> 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

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

> 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

> Well this is good news. I definitely don't need to do anything too heavy

> - having no shader support whatsoever was my fear. Thanks!

> 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

> 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

jit.gl.slab on MacBook (Intel GMA950)