Re: jit.matrixset and basic patch efficiency?

Apr 17, 2006 at 11:15pm

Re: jit.matrixset and basic patch efficiency?

On Apr 17, 2006, at 3:51 AM, stuart smith wrote:

> 1. Is there a way to route images from jit.uldl
> directly into jit.matixset? I’ve tested jit.qt.movie
> using the same image url’s
> and it seems far more gui/thread hungry? jit.uldl
> seems to run much smoother in the background. My
> patch is downloading images, substituting “%20″ for
> any “%2520″ in the image name, storing and reading
> from various coll objects.
> I would like to avoid this much disk access if
> possible, hence the jit.matrixset option.

You could use jit.uldl->disk->jit.matrix importmovie or jit.qt.movie –
>jit.matrixset. However, have you tried using asyncread with
jit.qt.movie and URLs? This does the work in a background thread.

> 2. A patch i’ve been using has 9 jit,qt.movie objects
> reading image stills into 9 videoplanes. These are
> only stills so i can use a “read $2, bang” without the
> use of metro.
> Could i improve on the efficiency by using only 1
> instance of jit.qt.movie and routing the image to one
> of the 9 videoplanes? Does jit.qt.movie instances use
> any cpu when not used?

Not if the movie is stopped and not being banged. So using 9
instances of jit.qt.movie is only taking up more RAM, not eating CPU
in this case.

-Joshua

#25480
Apr 18, 2006 at 12:29am

efficiency

I found mxj.jitwebimage
to be a good way to download images.

Another good thing to know is that you can use “importmovie” and just import pictures into a matrix without the quicktime object.

Employing either of these might help.

#75089

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.