Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, [email protected] wrote: > >>> From what i understood, i should use Pd+GEM to achieve my goal. But in >>> GEM documentation, i only found "pixel_blur", which looks irrelevant. >> Feel free to ask me any question, maybe what i explained is not clear >> enough, or you need extra informations. > > Well, it would be clearer if anyone of us knew why [pix_blur] is > irrelevant.
[pix_blur] is "irrelevant" as it was a misnomer and is now more correctly called [pix_motionblur]. i don't know whether this is the reason why tristan refers to it as being "irrelevant". Gem's documentation calls it "deprecated". > >> I'm quite experienced in Linux, opensource software, and electronics ; >> so don't fear to get into tech things. > > Well, if you want to apply any amount of blur, of any shape of blur, in > always the same amount of time, there's only one way that I know about, > and it's using Fourier transforms. or convolution which is just the same. fgmasdr IOhannes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
