Hey all,
In particular Chris & Jamie,
I'm working on an installation that plays 16 256x192 photo-jpeg videos. The patch works fine to start, but slowly and surely the video play-back gets worse and worse, getting choppy and dropping frames. Eventually the video playback looks like 1frame each second or so (after 1hr or so of running) and I'm not sure how to fix it.
According to the activity monitor I'm reading 8 to 15MB/s from the disk, so I thought I would try spreading the content over two disks, but that seems to have made little difference, or it just takes longer for the playback to suck.
top and the activity monitor say PD is using 98-120% CPU usage, but according to the CPU monitor, looks like both CPUs are sitting around 85%. PD is using 100MB of RAM, and 380 or so of virtual memory. I am not seeing the RAM increase to indicate a leak...
When I first load the patch the CPU usage stays the same, the RAM usage starts at about 70MB, and the Virtual memory at 350MB. The Disk IO is the same as well. So I don't see anything in activity monitor, or TOP that reflects the fact that the video playback gets terrible after an hour or so.
I'm right now using the pixelTANGO installer, I'm trying the extended releases now, which show the same consumption of resources, but I'll have to wait an hour to see if the end result is the same.
Any suggestions so I can figure out what is going on?
Oh and this is on a dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB RAM.
Thanks .b.
I don't see this problem using auto 1 and the rate message. Playback will get weird if you use the right inlet to change frames though.
You could try reloading the files every so often to see if that makes any difference. Also, try loading the clips into RAM using the 'ram' message if they never change.
On 3/1/06, B. Bogart ben@ekran.org wrote:
Hey all,
In particular Chris & Jamie,
I'm working on an installation that plays 16 256x192 photo-jpeg videos. The patch works fine to start, but slowly and surely the video play-back gets worse and worse, getting choppy and dropping frames. Eventually the video playback looks like 1frame each second or so (after 1hr or so of running) and I'm not sure how to fix it.
According to the activity monitor I'm reading 8 to 15MB/s from the disk, so I thought I would try spreading the content over two disks, but that seems to have made little difference, or it just takes longer for the playback to suck.
top and the activity monitor say PD is using 98-120% CPU usage, but according to the CPU monitor, looks like both CPUs are sitting around 85%. PD is using 100MB of RAM, and 380 or so of virtual memory. I am not seeing the RAM increase to indicate a leak...
When I first load the patch the CPU usage stays the same, the RAM usage starts at about 70MB, and the Virtual memory at 350MB. The Disk IO is the same as well. So I don't see anything in activity monitor, or TOP that reflects the fact that the video playback gets terrible after an hour or so.
I'm right now using the pixelTANGO installer, I'm trying the extended releases now, which show the same consumption of resources, but I'll have to wait an hour to see if the end result is the same.
Any suggestions so I can figure out what is going on?
Oh and this is on a dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB RAM.
Thanks .b.
GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
Hi Chris,
I am using "auto 1" with using interaction controlling "pause 0/1" messages.
I did try reloading the files once I get to this weird state, but it makes not difference, still behaves the same.
I'll try the RAM message, the videos are 2.5GB in total...
is "ram" only in the CVS version or was it also in 0.90? I don't remember seeing that message in the help. I guess I'll try to compile a Gem on that g5 machine. (Jamie, does the cmd line build automatically optimize for g5 when its on a g5?)
.b.
chris clepper wrote:
I don't see this problem using auto 1 and the rate message. Playback will get weird if you use the right inlet to change frames though.
You could try reloading the files every so often to see if that makes any difference. Also, try loading the clips into RAM using the 'ram' message if they never change.
On 3/1/06, *B. Bogart* <ben@ekran.org mailto:ben@ekran.org> wrote:
Hey all, In particular Chris & Jamie, I'm working on an installation that plays 16 256x192 photo-jpeg videos. The patch works fine to start, but slowly and surely the video play-back gets worse and worse, getting choppy and dropping frames. Eventually the video playback looks like 1frame each second or so (after 1hr or so of running) and I'm not sure how to fix it. According to the activity monitor I'm reading 8 to 15MB/s from the disk, so I thought I would try spreading the content over two disks, but that seems to have made little difference, or it just takes longer for the playback to suck. top and the activity monitor say PD is using 98-120% CPU usage, but according to the CPU monitor, looks like both CPUs are sitting around 85%. PD is using 100MB of RAM, and 380 or so of virtual memory. I am not seeing the RAM increase to indicate a leak... When I first load the patch the CPU usage stays the same, the RAM usage starts at about 70MB, and the Virtual memory at 350MB. The Disk IO is the same as well. So I don't see anything in activity monitor, or TOP that reflects the fact that the video playback gets terrible after an hour or so. I'm right now using the pixelTANGO installer, I'm trying the extended releases now, which show the same consumption of resources, but I'll have to wait an hour to see if the end result is the same. Any suggestions so I can figure out what is going on? Oh and this is on a dual 2GHz G5 with 2GB RAM. Thanks .b. _______________________________________________ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at <mailto:GEM-dev@iem.at> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev>
On 3/2/06, B. Bogart ben@ekran.org wrote:
I did try reloading the files once I get to this weird state, but it makes not difference, still behaves the same.
I defintely have not seen that. Can you post the patch or a stripped down version that gives you this problem? I can try to mock something up here.
I'll try the RAM message, the videos are 2.5GB in total...
You will need 2.5 GB of RAM to load those. The QT call loads the compressed movie into RAM and decompresses from memory. It is quite efficient once loaded.
is "ram" only in the CVS version or was it also in 0.90? I don't
remember seeing that message in the help. I guess I'll try to compile a Gem on that g5 machine. (Jamie, does the cmd line build automatically optimize for g5 when its on a g5?)
Any CPU option you use will not affect Quicktime performance at all. Maybe you have old or wrong versions of the QT stuff in your build? Can you test just the 16 files playing back in 0.90?
-
B. Bogart -
chris clepper