On 04/06/2008, at 8.35, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Steffen Juul wrote:On 02/06/2008, at 14.25, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:if you (or anybody else) finds more bugs till tomorrowHas something happened to [pix_data] since GEM: ver: 0.91-cvs GEM: compiled: May 21 2008 ? (I can't see anything in the Changelog.)I have a patch that uses that where the output is very different between the two versions.yes, [pix_data] is believed to be kind of fixed...at least it used to be. ah, looking at your compile date, it might indeed be that it was broken again when fixing [pix_mask] and so on...still, it would be nice if you could elaborate on the differences...
Sure. I should have supplied that from the start. Attached.
colortest.pd
Description: Binary data
<<inline: testbild.png>>
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
