At 9:19 AM -0500 12/12/03, B. Bogart wrote:
What is the purpose of auto to start with? Is it supposed to make it easier to built patches that have playing video (rather than using a counter+metro). Is it supposed to only allow a looping facility? If its meant to make patching players easier then I think it should be fully implimented (see my film_looper GOP on pure-data.org for an example). This is the first thing students complain about when using video in Gem they expect messages like:
stop play rate [x]
I had added 'play' and 'stop', but found that they were confusing when used with the existing auto functionality. Having both the play/stop and auto going at once made it difficult to figure out how to handle states, like you could have 'auto 1' but hit stop and the film would then do what? Stop because I hit stop or continue playing because 'auto 1' has set the object to grab a frame each render pass? One reason I do like 'auto' is that I can put a toggle on it and that will show the state of the object, but play/stop threw that out the window.
even qtvr panning, track control, open url etc..
these are, of course, only possible with Apple's QT.
something like the MAX QT object.
Frankly, i don't really care to model much of GEM off of any of the existing Max systems. In particular, I want to avoid the kitchen sink Nato 242.film object that attempted to do some sort of half-assed editing, which is completely unwieldy and inappropriate in a Max type environment. I will probably add the ability to select tracks in pix_filmDarwin in the near future as it will make loading and switching between files a lot easier by making a reference movie of all of the clips then loading just that into the pix_film object. That way the overhead of loading all the film data like counting all the frames will only happen once, and switching tracks on the fly should be very fast. I've had a QTVR object on the list for ages, but again this will only work on OSX and Windows. Opening a URL is actually very simple in QT, you just tell the object to open a movie in the URL rather than in the file path. If you need to play something off the internet with the current pix_film then make a local reference movie of the clip using 'save as QuickTime movie' in the browser or QT player and load the reference .mov in GEM. Works with streaming content as well. Not to shabby for a a single QT API call?
At this point I think its not valuable to nick-pick over "auto" when the real solution should be just to build a player right into the pix_* video objects, or keep the nessesity (as in older versions) to make your own player. (and drop "auto" altogether, its just not intuitive!)
I agree that the basic film object could be more fleshed out; however, we have to be careful that the functionality of the current object is somehow kept intact. I don't think a lot of people would like it if suddenly 'auto 1' didn't work the same way as before or was no longer even a supported message. I think we will have to make a decision to favor one system over the other in order to avoid any confusion about the internal states of the object like I illustrated above about auto vs play/stop. So perhaps 'play' always overrides the auto state? But what about direct frame access, does that supercede the play state?
We need better indications of the internal states of GEM objects there's no argument about that. Too many objects have vaguely defined messages like 'auto' that don't give a clear enough picture about how they are to be used. One of the nice things about using messages is that they can be self-documenting, so perhaps the GEM devs need to take better advantage of this.
my opinion anyhow.
Always appreciated. thanks.
cgc
B.