Max wrote:
Am 01.04.2009 um 15:10 schrieb IOhannes m zmoelnig:
no it's not weird. it's a known issue of Pd on OSX (fixed in
Pd-extended, afair) where Pd get's started in the / directory. all
relative paths are thus relative to the root and not to your
home-directory, nor the patch-directory
Max wrote:
or am i missing something obvious (it seems so, as i cannot reproduce
the memleak you report with [pix_image] either).
well, obviously you are missing something. i hope someone can reproduce
that with the attached patches.
run top to see the memory beeing eaten by pd. at least on
mark edward grimm wrote:
hey thats pretty nice!!
much nicer than my poor gem attempt last month...
and the patch:
put this to / because of the bug in pix_write to make it
work. put a folder called frames beside it.
yeah this is weird huh?
no it's not weird. it's a known issue of Pd on
Max wrote:
here is the same thing with pix_multiimage instead.
it will crash pd a little bit later than the version with pix_image.
i guess it is crashing right after you try loading 100 images (or
so) into RAM.
what do you expect?
(if you look carefully, you might also notice that
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Max wrote:
here is the same thing with pix_multiimage instead.
it will crash pd a little bit later than the version with pix_image.
i guess it is crashing right after you try loading 100 images (or
so) into RAM.
what do you expect?
(if you look carefully, you
Am 01.04.2009 um 15:10 schrieb IOhannes m zmoelnig:
mark edward grimm wrote:
hey thats pretty nice!!
much nicer than my poor gem attempt last month...
and the patch:
put this to / because of the bug in pix_write to make it
work. put a folder called frames beside it.
yeah this is weird huh?
Am 01.04.2009 um 15:14 schrieb IOhannes m zmoelnig:
Max wrote:
here is the same thing with pix_multiimage instead.
it will crash pd a little bit later than the version with pix_image.
i guess it is crashing right after you try loading 100 images
(or so) into RAM.
what do you expect?
Am 01.04.2009 um 16:45 schrieb IOhannes m zmoelnig:
despite of my sarcasm: have you considered using [pix_buffer] rather
than [pix_multiimage]; it is way more flexible.
(e.g. if all the images can fit into ram, you don't even need a
harddisk)
thanks for the hint, i'll try it out.
m.
abonneme...@revolwear.com
Subject: [PD] GEM pix_write bugs (timelapse)
To: pd-list@iem.at
Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 12:52 PM
hi list,
i've thrown together this tiny gem patch which makes a
timelapse slideshow.
i have encountered a few issues with it.
configuration:
Pd version
month...
and the patch:
put this to / because of the bug in pix_write to make it
work. put a folder called frames beside it.
yeah this is weird huh?
--- On Sat, 3/28/09, Max abonneme...@revolwear.com wrote:
From: Max abonneme...@revolwear.com
Subject: [PD] GEM pix_write bugs (timelapse
hi list,
i've thrown together this tiny gem patch which makes a timelapse
slideshow.
i have encountered a few issues with it.
configuration:
Pd version 0.41.4-extended-20090223
GEM: ver: 0.91.3 'tigital'
GEM: compiled: Feb 23 2009
OS X 10.5.6
the issues:
1. pix_write doesn't interpret the
11 matches
Mail list logo
