Re: [GEM-dev] using logpost(3) for version message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2011 03:05 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: Ah, I see. Are there any runtime tests for the Pd version in Gem? how it that supposed to help? I'm perfectly happy if you want to use verbose() instead of logpost(). I didn't use it because I can't remember what level it posts at, there is something about +4. so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and verbose(0)? how come? fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6EF2YACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTsAACg4pokdmaPXBlLUeH0Mlx3PK5k NLcAn0rJysYYVnLav2XlpY326XMnNLxl =HvAO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
Re: [GEM-dev] Output two images from pix_ object
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2011 07:19 PM, Antoine Villeret wrote: hi, did you finally found a way to output more than one pix image from a pix object ? i'm interessed in it too and also on adding severals pix_image input there shouldn't be any problem outputting with outputting 2 separate states (holding 2 separate images) onto 2 separate outlets. what are you struggling with? fgmadsr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6EGCAACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQXoQCgvuo1IFIvUugSsWlGVLVMrLRV j4UAn0BZOoAiGUldA6qn43H8lvKA/mE7 =p863 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
[GEM-dev] Error in terminal V4L2 and libV4Lconvert
Hello, I made a patch on my laptop with Pd 0.42.6 and Gem 0.93.SVN rev4516. It is working fine on this configuration. I send it to a friend which one is on the same Ubuntu (but maybe a different Pd and Gem, i think it is pd-ext 0.42.5). The patch use two [pix_video], one [pix_film] with a movie using mjpeg codec. When he opens the patch, he gets : v4l2: vidioc_s_crop: Invalid argument v4l2: VIDIOC_S_FMT: Invalid argument v4l2: vidioc_s_crop: Invalid argument v4l2: VIDIOC_S_FMT: Invalid argument libv4lconvert: Error decompressing JPEG: fill_nbits error: need 9 more bits libv4lconvert: Error decompressing JPEG: fill_nbits error: need 9 more bits libv4lconvert: Error decompressing JPEG: fill_nbits error: need 9 more bits libv4lconvert: Error decompressing JPEG: fill_nbits error: need 9 more bits Any help about the meaning of this errors is welcome. Thanx. ++ Jack ___ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
Re: [GEM-dev] using logpost(3) for version message
On Sep 29, 2011, at 2:59 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/28/2011 03:05 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: Ah, I see. Are there any runtime tests for the Pd version in Gem? how it that supposed to help? I'm perfectly happy if you want to use verbose() instead of logpost(). I didn't use it because I can't remember what level it posts at, there is something about +4. so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and verbose(0)? how come? Because that's the way it is, and that the way that you insisted it be against Miller and my objections. You insisted that verbose() post with a +4 on the log level. Try it for yourself: log level 2 post(post mycobject: %f, f); log level 3 verbose(-1, verbose -1 mycobject: %f, f); log level 4 verbose(0, verbose 0 mycobject: %f, f); .hc http://at.or.at/hans/ ___ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
Re: [GEM-dev] using logpost(3) for version message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-09-29 17:05, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and verbose(0)? how come? Because that's the way it is, and that the way that you insisted it be against Miller and my objections. You insisted that verbose() post with a +4 on the log level. since i cannot remember such a thing (even after reading up the discussion on verbose() again), i would very much like you to give a reference for my insistance and your (and miller's ) objections. what i do remember, is that i i wanted verbose(3) to be more important than verbose(5), and that verbose(0) is less important than post(). the latter is probably the reason for +4 [1], but my intention would never have been to have a _gap_ between post() and verbose(0). post() should be verbose(-1), and not verbose(-2). the problem probably came from removing some named error loglevel, and due to the confusion between named loglevels and numbered loglevels. ffgasmdr IOhannes [1] http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2011-02/016578.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6EjXIACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRSQQCg3deI/7l+xVfZmTInblrY6OYt BasAn349IhRl9wVJKC5eS6eugaFUSDO3 =zafq -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
Re: [GEM-dev] using logpost(3) for version message
On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:23 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-09-29 17:05, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: so you are saying that there is a loglevel between post() and verbose(0)? how come? Because that's the way it is, and that the way that you insisted it be against Miller and my objections. You insisted that verbose() post with a +4 on the log level. since i cannot remember such a thing (even after reading up the discussion on verbose() again), i would very much like you to give a reference for my insistance and your (and miller's ) objections. what i do remember, is that i i wanted verbose(3) to be more important than verbose(5), and that verbose(0) is less important than post(). the latter is probably the reason for +4 [1], but my intention would never have been to have a _gap_ between post() and verbose(0). post() should be verbose(-1), and not verbose(-2). the problem probably came from removing some named error loglevel, and due to the confusion between named loglevels and numbered loglevels. I think the numbering in verbose() is weird. What you propose makes a little more sense than the current thing, but I think there should just be one numbering scheme at the interface, i.e. logpost(3) should post at the same level as verbose(3) and they both should be the same numbers as what are in the Pd window. I completely avoid verbose() because it means I have to look up or test how its numbers work. With ogpost(), I just think about log level menu, which I use a lot. .hc Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic ___ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
