dobyhal

is there any way to make a [jit.qt.movie] calculate a 640x480 movie as if it was

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 ?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////

http://es.klingt.org/~oliver/pd/live-builder

-----------------------------------------

is there any way to make a [jit.qt.movie] calculate a 640x480 movie as if it was
a 320x240 native dimension ?

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.

 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\
//// 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        
-----------------------------------------


movie-dimension-tweaking

if you force your jit.qt.movie 320 240 (dont use adapt 1) it shoudl 

read it in as 320 x240 and interpolate down.

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

> 1 have a matrix containing 4 different movies rendered onto a 

> everything works fine and at reasonable cpu usage as long as only 

> are played. now since my project will go through several folders at 

> every now and then a 640x480 movie is loaded. that sort of doubles 

> power. if i happen to load 2 of those, i'm at 100%.

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

>
> 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%.
>

> 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

it seems that before anything the movie in its entire dimension is being

decoded, thus resulting in huge calculating power.

> 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.

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 

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

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

>> 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 

> for the 640x480 movies. adapt is off by default, i checked that. it 

> suggestion that this should be a sort of simple downscaling 

> it seems that before anything the movie in its entire dimension is 

> decoded, thus resulting in huge calculating power.

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.

> 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


> 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

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

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

i still use quicktime 6.5, because i had severe audiosync and also movie playing

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 ?

> 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.

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 ?

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.

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 ?

- 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.

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 ?


> 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

> - 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

> - 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.

>
> 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.

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

movie dimension tweaking?...