Text will definitely bog it down, though he didn't mention text, but it's
possible he's running text. If you have a high frame rate, but aren't
doing anything, then I would ask what's the point of the high frame rate?
In general, the less you demand of Director, the more time there is for
everything else. If you're not demanding much to begin with, and have a
good system, it may not make a noticable difference, but if you have
overhead, the less you can do in the background while running video, the
better.
As far as Kerry's suggesting going down to two - I usually prefer 4 or 6
because I get better rollover response, and therefore greater perceived
speed, at 4 or 6 than I do with 2. Other than that, there's no
point. Just depends on how you're architected up and what you're doing on
the exitFrames.
- Tab
At 02:51 PM 5/17/01 -0400, Colin Holgate wrote:
>Both of them may be wrong :-)
>
>I'm currently working with 3.6 Mbyte/Sec, 720 x 480, 30 fps (actually, 60
>fields) DV compressed QuickTime movies, with 44.1 or 48 KHz 16 bit stereo
>sound, and they work fine whether I set 30 fps (which I need to for
>certain animations) or 1 fps.
>
>What may matter more is what Director is doing during the times it gets.
>If it's doing a lot, then lower frame rates may help, but if it's not
>doing much then higher frame rates seem to be just fine.
>
>What's interesting is how little it takes for Director to be demanding.
>For example, changing the contents of a text member can really cause the
>video to hitch. I would argue to keep the frame rate high while you
>optimize what ever else is going on, and then lower the frame rate if that
>helps the video a little more.
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
