movie dimension tweaking?…

Jan 17, 2006 at 2:13am

movie dimension tweaking?…

hi,

is there any way to make a [jit.qt.movie] calculate a 640×480 movie as if it was
a 320×240 native dimension ?

to be a little more precise:

1 have a matrix containing 4 different movies rendered onto a jit.gl.videoplane.
everything works fine and at reasonable cpu usage as long as only 320×240 movies
are played. now since my project will go through several folders at random,
every now and then a 640×480 movie is loaded. that sort of doubles the CPU
power. if i happen to load 2 of those, i’m at 100%.

i tried several things, messed around with [dim( and [dstrect( messages and so
on. no improvement. i would be very happy to have a jitter based solution for
this rather than reencode the bigger movies to 320×240.

is there any open gl magic that could do the trick ?

thanks for any suggestion

oliver

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\
//// http://klingt.org/ground/lift //// http://www.charmant-rouge.com /////
\ http://klingt.org/executive-ensemble \ http://klingt.org/~oliver/prb \
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////
\\\ LIVE-BUILDER: http://es.klingt.org/~oliver/pd/live-builder \\\\
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////

—————————————–
sent through klingt.org webmail
—————————————–

#23965
Jan 17, 2006 at 2:32am

if you force your jit.qt.movie 320 240 (dont use adapt 1) it shoudl
read it in as 320 x240 and interpolate down.

?

v a d e //

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

On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:13 PM, oliver@klingt.org wrote:

>
> 1 have a matrix containing 4 different movies rendered onto a
> jit.gl.videoplane.
> everything works fine and at reasonable cpu usage as long as only
> 320×240 movies
> are played. now since my project will go through several folders at
> random,
> every now and then a 640×480 movie is loaded. that sort of doubles
> the CPU
> power. if i happen to load 2 of those, i’m at 100%.
>

#68554
Jan 17, 2006 at 2:47am

Zitat von vade :

> if you force your jit.qt.movie 320 240 (dont use adapt 1) it shoudl
> read it in as 320 x240 and interpolate down.
>
> ?

doesn’t seem so. i use the same [jit.qt.movie] object for the 320×240 as well as
for the 640×480 movies. adapt is off by default, i checked that. it was also my
suggestion that this should be a sort of simple downscaling mechanism but my
CPU tells me otherwise ;-)

it seems that before anything the movie in its entire dimension is being
decoded, thus resulting in huge calculating power.

oliver

—————————————–
sent through klingt.org webmail
—————————————–

#68555
Jan 17, 2006 at 4:49am

> what version of jitter are you using?

v a d e //

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

#68556
Jan 17, 2006 at 7:39am

For efficiency, the movie is decompressed to a matrix of the same
size of the original movie, and then, if necessary, copied to a
scaled matrix. It’s actually _slower_ to do it the way you’re
suggesting. But what kind of movie are you using that pegs your CPU
meter with 2 simultaneous loads? I mean, what codec, for instance and
what frame rate.

You might also consider using @colormode uyvy to reduce the load a bit.

jb

Am 17.01.2006 um 03:47 schrieb oliver@klingt.org:

> Zitat von vade :
>
>> if you force your jit.qt.movie 320 240 (dont use adapt 1) it shoudl
>> read it in as 320 x240 and interpolate down.
>>
>> ?
>
> doesn’t seem so. i use the same [jit.qt.movie] object for the
> 320×240 as well as
> for the 640×480 movies. adapt is off by default, i checked that. it
> was also my
> suggestion that this should be a sort of simple downscaling
> mechanism but my
> CPU tells me otherwise ;-)
>
> it seems that before anything the movie in its entire dimension is
> being
> decoded, thus resulting in huge calculating power.
>
>
> oliver

#68557
Jan 17, 2006 at 11:17am

Zitat von Jeremy Bernstein :

> For efficiency, the movie is decompressed to a matrix of the same
> size of the original movie, and then, if necessary, copied to a
> scaled matrix. It’s actually _slower_ to do it the way you’re
> suggesting. But what kind of movie are you using that pegs your CPU
> meter with 2 simultaneous loads? I mean, what codec, for instance and
> what frame rate.
>
> You might also consider using @colormode uyvy to reduce the load a bit.

ah, sorry forgot to deliver the details:

i’m on XP, jitter is 1.5
the movies are compressed with fotojpeg, which proved to be the most economic
and satisfying for my needs. framerate is 25 fps.
my computer is a dell inspiron 6000 with a 128mb ati radeon. so my hardware is
not bad at all and as i said – as long as the movies are 320×240 i’m way under
40% CPU usage with 4 simultaneous movies

i still use quicktime 6.5, because i had severe audiosync and also movie playing
problems with QT 7.

jeremy: if you say “the movie is decompressed to a matrix of the same
size of the original movie” does this mean that there is no way of doing
downscaling a large movie on the fly ? is there a _faster_ way to do it ?

thanks

oliver

—————————————–
sent through klingt.org webmail
—————————————–

#68558
Jan 17, 2006 at 11:53am

No, in our early tests it was slower to decompress a 640×480 movie into a 320×240 GWorld than it was to decompress a 640×480 movie into a 640×480 GWorld and copy it. So, we don’t offer that as an option. You have a couple of choices:

- If you don’t need to do any processing, decompress the movie into a hardware window using the “window” attribute. This will be fast, because it’s hardware accelerated.
- Batch rescale your media to the size you want to use it at.

Sorry to disappoint.

jb

Quote: dobyhal wrote on Tue, 17 January 2006 12:17
—————————————————-

> jeremy: if you say “the movie is decompressed to a matrix of the same
> size of the original movie” does this mean that there is no way of doing
> downscaling a large movie on the fly ? is there a _faster_ way to do it ?

#68559
Jan 17, 2006 at 12:10pm

Zitat von Jeremy Bernstein :

>
> No, in our early tests it was slower to decompress a 640×480 movie into a
> 320×240 GWorld than it was to decompress a 640×480 movie into a 640×480
> GWorld and copy it. So, we don’t offer that as an option. You have a couple
> of choices:
>
> – If you don’t need to do any processing, decompress the movie into a
> hardware window using the “window” attribute. This will be fast, because it’s
> hardware accelerated.

sorry, but processing is needed

> – Batch rescale your media to the size you want to use it at.

ok, so there’s no other tricks than the ones i already found.
still, thanks for all the information

ciao

oliver

—————————————–
sent through klingt.org webmail
—————————————–

#68560

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.