Re: [PD-dev] Question about multi-arch Mac OS X - is 32-Bit still around? (IOhannes m zm?lnig)
So would we remove those older implementations or transfer the other OS implementations into newer plugins? Or has that already been done for Linux & Win?
On Feb 23, 2014, at 6:00 AM, pd-dev-request@iem.at wrote:
From: IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD-dev] Question about multi-arch Mac OS X - is 32-Bit still around? Date: February 23, 2014 at 4:09:29 AM EST To: Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com, "me.grimm" megrimm@gmail.com Cc: "pd-dev@iem.at" pd-dev@iem.at
On 02/23/2014 01:46 AM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Just to confirm what Iohannes, et al. already know. pix_filmDarwin, pix_movieDarwin, pix_recordQT, & pix_videoDarwin need to be updated to use the newer Apple APIs: QTKit or AVFoundation. I've done an AVFoundation app already and we're using QTkit in the updated OpenFrameworks code, so I can probably reuse bits here and there.
ohoh just to make sure: [pix_filmFoo] is long dead. Gem now uses a plugin system to access the various platform dependent components. so what needs to be done is writing the following plugins:
- videoQtKit
- filmQtKil
- recordQtKit
check Gem/plugins/ for examples.
mfdars IOhannes
PS: sorry, not much time right now to elaborate
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
On 02/23/2014 03:58 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
So would we remove those older implementations or transfer the other OS implementations into newer plugins? Or has that already been done for Linux & Win?
it has already been done for all platforms (also on OSX - e.g. videoDarwin, filmQT,...) what is missing are plugins for QtKit.
the source tree still contains the *unused* code for e.g. pix_filmDarwin.cpp...
fgasdrm IOhannes
Yeah, I guess I meant "Should we remove the unused code at this point?" :D
On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:21 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
the source tree still contains the *unused* code for e.g. pix_filmDarwin.cpp...
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Also, from what I've read, AVFoundation is the best bet for the long run. I may start with AVFoundation plugins, then go QTkit if there is a need unless there are overwhelming reasons to use QTKit over AVFoundation. I know one issue is that QTKit handles more codecs and video formats, but I think the writing is on the wall regarding the formats "blessed" by Apple since they are are supporting fewer in AVFoundation mainly since those are supported in hardware (aka better performance).
On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:21 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
what is missing are plugins for QtKit.
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Actually, on second thought, why reinvent the wheel. It will be *alot* quicker to port James George's QTkit implementation from OpenFrameworks as opposed to coding with AVFoundation from scratch. Maybe that's the best bet all around. As Edison said: "Better is the enemy of good."
On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Also, from what I've read, AVFoundation is the best bet for the long run. I may start with AVFoundation plugins, then go QTkit if there is a need unless there are overwhelming reasons to use QTKit over AVFoundation. I know one issue is that QTKit handles more codecs and video formats, but I think the writing is on the wall regarding the formats "blessed" by Apple since they are are supporting fewer in AVFoundation mainly since those are supported in hardware (aka better performance).
On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:21 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
what is missing are plugins for QtKit.
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Also, sorry Iohannes, I see you already have SDL & GLFW support. I was already looking at the wrong sources.
On Feb 23, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, on second thought, why reinvent the wheel. It will be *alot* quicker to port James George's QTkit implementation from OpenFrameworks as opposed to coding with AVFoundation from scratch. Maybe that's the best bet all around. As Edison said: "Better is the enemy of good."
On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Also, from what I've read, AVFoundation is the best bet for the long run. I may start with AVFoundation plugins, then go QTkit if there is a need unless there are overwhelming reasons to use QTKit over AVFoundation. I know one issue is that QTKit handles more codecs and video formats, but I think the writing is on the wall regarding the formats "blessed" by Apple since they are are supporting fewer in AVFoundation mainly since those are supported in hardware (aka better performance).
On Feb 23, 2014, at 11:21 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
what is missing are plugins for QtKit.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
-
Dan Wilcox -
IOhannes m zmölnig