oh, ok. Thanks Cyrille, you threw some light over my confusion. I now understand what you meant. I'll give it a try waiting longer.
M 2010/8/9 cyrille henry <c...@chnry.net> > > > Le 09/08/2010 13:58, Marco Donnarumma a écrit : > > @ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that >> the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other. >> >> @ Cirylle: ok, now maybe I understand. >> I'm actually already using a similar abstraction of yours to monitor fps >> :) >> My patch is completely automatic, it's a sonification/visualization of >> large amount of data, thus I just press a toggle to start it. >> >> So: >> if while recording the fps monitor shows 10fps, it means that also >> pix_write will record only 10 frames per second and _not_ 20 as I stated >> in gemwin, is that correct? >> > no, it will take 2 min to record 1min of video at 20fps. > > > >> I was probably wrong assuming that whatever fps is stated in gemwin will >> be the recorded fps, even though the machine can't reproduce it in >> real-time. >> >> Ok, so, if I can only record at 10 fps, what do you suggest to finally >> have a recorded video with a decent framerate? (apart from changing >> machine...) >> > waite longer... > > I guess I could use ffmpeg to double the framerate, but the video might >> be jittery... >> > no, the video will be perfect, since everything is done with pd time. > pd time is no more real time, but that just a question of cpu/gpu. > everything else should be exactly the same. > > c > > >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> 2010/8/9 cyrille henry <c...@chnry.net <mailto:c...@chnry.net>> >> >> >> here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. >> it help a lot to track this kind of problem. >> c >> >> >> Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit : >> >> Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto: >> >> Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto: >> >> Hi all, >> it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a >> GEM output, >> reading archives and forums. >> >> I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple >> geos, four >> pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, >> and data >> exchange through local network. >> However I can record in a really good quality using both >> pix_record >> or pix_write. >> >> The problem is the recorded video is faster than the >> actual one. >> >> Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very >> intensive >> motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see >> in >> your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is >> generated >> will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is >> running. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list >> >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD >> Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, >> UK >> >> >> PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com >> LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | >> http://www.flxer.net >> EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net >> > > -- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list