Re: [PD] GEM 64 bit?
Why QTKit and not AVFoundation? Openframeworks is doing the same transition and is using AVFoundation AFAIK. On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:11 AM, chris clepper wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM, m.e.grimm wrote: > > the film and vid would be using apples newer quicktime framework ... QTKIT > > so basically imageCOCOA, filmQTKIT, and videoQTKIT have to be written > > anyone want to help me? in into doing it but I would definitely need > help due to some harsh time constraints, etc. > > > Since I did the original Carbon versions of those I can say you will need > hundreds of hours to get everything tuned to the point it was under 10.4. I > even went to Cupertino and worked with Apple engineers directly to get some > things sorted out before the NeXTies killed the real Quicktime (and the Pro > apps). My advice, don't develop anything that relies on Apple unless you > like getting jerked around on a regular basis! Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] PD file parsing lib
Has anyone written a plain C/C++ patch file parser? As in, load a patch and get objects, positions, etc ... I have the basis for one from my alpha port of Chris McCormick's PdParty to Openframeworks/iOS. I'm thinking this is a generally useful thing and perhaps it makes sense to spin it off as a companion to libpd ... I was actually thinking it wouldn't be *too* difficult to write an OSX Preview Plugin so that you would see a rendered patch in the Finder ... Dan Wilcox danomatika.com robotcowboy.com ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] help with expr and differential equation
which solution/formula do you want to implement? what are the variables and how do you do the feedback? Am 17.06.2012 20:15, schrieb ronni montoya: Hi, im trying to implement the lokta volterra equation using expr in pd : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation im doing in this way: [expr $f1 * ($f3 - ($f4 * $f2)); $f2 * ($f5 - ($f6 * $f1)); ] but im not the getting the expected result, im only getting the output of the second outlet but with wierd results, any idea what am i doing wrong? thanks R. ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
[PD] help with expr and differential equation
Hi, im trying to implement the lokta volterra equation using expr in pd : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation im doing in this way: [expr $f1 * ($f3 - ($f4 * $f2)); $f2 * ($f5 - ($f6 * $f1)); ] but im not the getting the expected result, im only getting the output of the second outlet but with wierd results, any idea what am i doing wrong? thanks R. ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
- Original Message - > From: Matt Barber > To: Jonathan Wilkes > Cc: katja ; pd-list > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 10:48 AM > Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ? > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Wilkes > wrote: >> What does Csound's vdelayxw do: mix or overwrite? >> > > It's based on "approach A" -- mixing a kernel into the buffer, so > it > mixes automatically. The read head of the delay line zeroes each > sample out after reading. Then what is achieved by the approach of writing directly to a table that cannot be achieved by taking the output from the read head and [tabwrite~]ing it into a table? You can set the window size with [block~], no? Hopefully that makes sense-- I'm still not completely sure on the difference between the two approaches. -Jonathan > > Matt > ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Simon Wise wrote: > On 17/06/12 12:37, Matt Barber wrote: As far as mixing vs. overwriting is concerned, that actually depends on what it's trying to model. Overwriting is probably right for a looper, but mixing is right for a recording of a moving sound source - and because [poke~] doesn't interpolate it's not an issue (it wouldn't be useful to model a moving sound source). >>> >>> >>> But 'approach B' condenses 4 read samples into 1 write sample, so >>> basically it does the same as [poke]: writing one sample at a time. >>> There is no need for mixing internally. If you want to mix, it can be >>> done externally. In my view, a Pd object need not internalize >>> functions that can be done externally, unless there is a huge >>> performance penalty involved. >> >> >> >> Here is one use case where mixing as part of the function would be >> useful. Imagine you're trying to model a sound source moving at mach+ >> speeds -- let's say it starts 500 meters away from the microphone and >> plays for 3 seconds, and then it moves toward the microphone at twice >> the speed of sound until it gets two meters away, and then (against >> any sensible law of inertia) it turns on a dime and moves away from >> the mic again at .25 the speed of sound. >> >> Much of the sound it generates after it makes the turn will reach the >> microphone before the sound it was making when it started its approach >> toward the microphone reaches the mic (since the source overtakes its >> own previous sound). > > > Not so sure that mixing makes sense in this example if you are trying to > model something physical ... something moving that fast (for your example a > bullet which is shot out of a rifle then bounces back off something very > substantial and hard to produce the trajectory you described) would create a > sonic boom (a conical wave front) rather than a sound reversed in time while > it was travelling supersonically. You get a kind of 3D bow-wave produced, > like a boat in water, rather than neat sound ripples following slowly along > behind the source in some kind of overlapping spherical wave front pattern. > So you would not want to mix, but rather would need to model the boom > followed by the sound produced after the slowdown. I don't know how one > would model the sound behind/inside the cone while the object was still > travelling supersonically, but might guess it was turbulent and noisy, > probably something a bit like the wake of a boat. Also not sure what model > you would use to deal with sound produced just before the fast travel, but > where the projectile caught up and the sonic boom disrupted the nice > spherical wave fronts. > > But you might want to do a mix for other reasons. > Yes, good points, and thanks. But it does make a fun "what if" -- I guess my scenario is more literally like a write head moving toward a read head faster than the speed of the tape. You're right that it's an utterly different medium than air. Matt ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > What does Csound's vdelayxw do: mix or overwrite? > It's based on "approach A" -- mixing a kernel into the buffer, so it mixes automatically. The read head of the delay line zeroes each sample out after reading. Matt ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] [pd] tables as patch storage
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:29:10PM -0400, Billy Stiltner wrote: > so there are 3 builti ways to do some sort of patch storage - msgbox, > table, and txtfile. 4) "data structures" i.e. the [struct] object and relatives. Ciao -- Frank BarknechtDo You RjDj.me? _ __footils.org__ ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Re: [PD] ipoke~ ?
What does Csound's vdelayxw do: mix or overwrite? -Jonathan - Original Message - > From: Matt Barber > To: katja > Cc: pd-list > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 12:37 AM > Subject: Re: [PD] ipoke~ ? > >>> As far as mixing vs. overwriting is concerned, that actually depends >>> on what it's trying to model. Overwriting is probably right for a >>> looper, but mixing is right for a recording of a moving sound source - >>> and because [poke~] doesn't interpolate it's not an issue (it > wouldn't >>> be useful to model a moving sound source). >> >> But 'approach B' condenses 4 read samples into 1 write sample, so >> basically it does the same as [poke]: writing one sample at a time. >> There is no need for mixing internally. If you want to mix, it can be >> done externally. In my view, a Pd object need not internalize >> functions that can be done externally, unless there is a huge >> performance penalty involved. > > > Here is one use case where mixing as part of the function would be > useful. Imagine you're trying to model a sound source moving at mach+ > speeds -- let's say it starts 500 meters away from the microphone and > plays for 3 seconds, and then it moves toward the microphone at twice > the speed of sound until it gets two meters away, and then (against > any sensible law of inertia) it turns on a dime and moves away from > the mic again at .25 the speed of sound. > > Much of the sound it generates after it makes the turn will reach the > microphone before the sound it was making when it started its approach > toward the microphone reaches the mic (since the source overtakes its > own previous sound). > > Moving toward the mic faster than sound is analogous to moving > backwards in the table, and for it to be correct it needs to mix > rather than overwrite, and it would be very difficult to maintain > separate copies of everything and mix it elsewhere in Pd for anything > where the control signal is less predictable. > > So, maybe this is a totally exceptional case that isn't worth caring > about, but I'd like to note that this kind of thing (not necessarily > faster-than-speed sound, but the physical model) is exactly the > motivation for the movable write into a delay line used in room > simulation and/or distance encoding in ambisonics, and I think there > ought to be at least a switch at the end of the creation argument line > that only interested people would use and everyone else can forget > about (that is, if "approach B" turns out to work well in the first > place). > > Matt > > ___ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > ___ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
