Pierre Alexandre Tremblay

I would no pretend it is a bug report, because I am way to insecure 

if you open jit.gl.videoplane help file, and you play with the 

tex_offset_x, tex_scale_x, tex_offset_y, tex_scale_y, and even nudge, 

you do not see any effect until you play with the dim...

btw, would there be a better way than this to use just a part of a 

texture T1 on an object, and an other zone of the same texture T1 on 

I would no pretend it is a bug report, because I am way to insecure  
in openGl to do so, but:

if you open jit.gl.videoplane help file, and you play with the  
tex_offset_x, tex_scale_x, tex_offset_y, tex_scale_y, and even nudge,  
you do not see any effect until you play with the dim...

btw, would there be a better way than this to use just a part of a  
texture T1 on an object, and an other zone of the same texture T1 on  
an other object?


jit-gl-videoplane-tex_offset_x-problem

On Feb 22, 2006, at 7:41 AM, Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:

> if you open jit.gl.videoplane help file, and you play with the 

> tex_offset_x, tex_scale_x, tex_offset_y, tex_scale_y, and even 

> nudge, you do not see any effect until you play with the dim...

This is a known issue we hope to resolve soon, but yes for the 

meantime, this is the appropriate workaround.

> btw, would there be a better way than this to use just a part of a 

> texture T1 on an object, and an other zone of the same texture T1 

You could just use low level OpenGL calls with jit.gl.sketch if you 

> if you open jit.gl.videoplane help file, and you play with the  
> tex_offset_x, tex_scale_x, tex_offset_y, tex_scale_y, and even  
> nudge, you do not see any effect until you play with the dim...
>
> Is it normal?

This is  a known issue we hope to resolve soon, but yes for the  
meantime, this is the appropriate workaround.

> btw, would there be a better way than this to use just a part of a  
> texture T1 on an object, and an other zone of the same texture T1  
> on an other object?

You could just use low level OpenGL calls with jit.gl.sketch if you  
prefer.


>> btw, would there be a better way than this to use just a part of a 

>> texture T1 on an object, and an other zone of the same texture T1 

> You could just use low level OpenGL calls with jit.gl.sketch if you 

Am I right to think that it is more efficient to read a movie once, 

and then to do the reframing by different scope on the same texture, 

instead of the movie going into jit.scisors, then sent to several 

>> btw, would there be a better way than this to use just a part of a  
>> texture T1 on an object, and an other zone of the same texture T1  
>> on an other object?
>
> You could just use low level OpenGL calls with jit.gl.sketch if you  
> prefer.

Am I right to think that it is more efficient to read a movie once,  
and then to do the reframing by different scope on the same texture,  
instead of the movie going into jit.scisors, then sent to several  
jit.gl.texture?

On Feb 22, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Pierre Alexandre Tremblay wrote:

> Am I right to think that it is more efficient to read a movie once, 

> and then to do the reframing by different scope on the same 

> texture, instead of the movie going into jit.scisors, then sent to 

Yes. Though it might not be much worse as long as you're not sending 

more video data total, if you're using *lots* of small textures, the 

performance difference might be noticeable.

> Am I right to think that it is more efficient to read a movie once,  
> and then to do the reframing by different scope on the same  
> texture, instead of the movie going into jit.scisors, then sent to  
> several jit.gl.texture?

Yes. Though it might not be much worse as long as you're not sending  
more video data total, if you're using *lots* of small textures, the  
performance difference might be noticeable.

jit.gl.videoplane tex_offset_x problem?