Re: jit.matrixset and basic patch efficiency?


    Apr 17 2006 | 11:15 pm
    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

    • Apr 18 2006 | 12:29 am
      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.