hey dudley, I think at this point it would help to see your patch... marius.
Dudley Brooks wrote: > chris clepper wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Dudley Brooks >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >> In short: How do you use snap/pix_snap/pix_record (or maybe something >> else and pix_snap?) to capture the output of a *complicated* patch? >> >> >> [gemhead 99] >> | >> | >> [pix_snap] >> >> >> > Of course! Ingenious! > > However ... I tried it, and, even though the frame count output of > pix_record churned out frame numbers, the resulting file was only one > frame long and that frame only showed one of the geos. I even made the > priorities of the various geos' gemheads explicitly lower and it still > didn't work. > > I can't figure out why that particular geo registered -- none of the > geo's were connected to pix_snap. That's the intention, right? I also > tried connecting several of the geos to pix_snap and the results were > still the same: the movie had only one frame, which contained only one > geo -- even when that particular geo was the only one which was *not* > connected to pix_snap. So the connections were irrelevant. > > I assume it has something to do with rendering/buffering, but I don't > know enough about those. > > -- Dudley > > _______________________________________________ > PD-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list