movie dimension tweaking?...


    Jan 17 2006 | 2:13 am
    hi,
    is there any way to make a [jit.qt.movie] calculate a 640x480 movie as if it was
    a 320x240 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 320x240 movies
    are played. now since my project will go through several folders at random,
    every now and then a 640x480 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 320x240.
    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
    -----------------------------------------

    • Jan 17 2006 | 2:32 am
      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 //
      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
      > 320x240 movies
      > are played. now since my project will go through several folders at
      > random,
      > every now and then a 640x480 movie is loaded. that sort of doubles
      > the CPU
      > power. if i happen to load 2 of those, i'm at 100%.
      >
    • Jan 17 2006 | 2:47 am
      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 320x240 as well as
      for the 640x480 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
      -----------------------------------------
    • Jan 17 2006 | 4:49 am
      > what version of jitter are you using?
      v a d e //
      www.vade.info
      abstrakt.vade.info
    • Jan 17 2006 | 7:39 am
      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
      > 320x240 as well as
      > for the 640x480 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
    • Jan 17 2006 | 11:17 am
      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 320x240 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
      -----------------------------------------
    • Jan 17 2006 | 11:53 am
      No, in our early tests it was slower to decompress a 640x480 movie into a 320x240 GWorld than it was to decompress a 640x480 movie into a 640x480 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 ?
    • Jan 17 2006 | 12:10 pm
      Zitat von Jeremy Bernstein :
      >
      > No, in our early tests it was slower to decompress a 640x480 movie into a
      > 320x240 GWorld than it was to decompress a 640x480 movie into a 640x480
      > 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
      -----------------------------------------