yes, with pix_film too... (I load .jpg files into it)<br>(and with pix_buffer too)<br><br>but maybe I&#39;m wrong somewhere?<br>I join patchs with pix_buffer and pix_film...<br>(maybe you have to change file path to make it work)<br>
<br> is gem 0.91.3 the hottest Gem ?<br><br><br>thx.<br>stéfan<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/4/27 chris clepper <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:cgclepper@gmail.com">cgclepper@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:27 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at" target="_blank">zmoelnig@iem.at</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><br></div>
first of all, this bug in Gem has been fixed in recent SVN (after your initial bug-report)<br>
the obvious solution is to run the hottest Gem (no release out, though; so you have to compile it yerself)<br>
<br>
and since it is (was) a bug in the implementation of Gem, there is no way you can &quot;fix&quot; it in Pd. the only workaround is to restart Pd (which will free all stray memory). &quot;unloading&quot; does not work, because the memory had been lost.</blockquote>

</div><div><br>Is this also bug with pix_film?  I used pix_film for permanent installations to load hundreds of thousands of films over years without running into this problem.  The same patch also had large pix_buffer objects that are stable in RAM usage.<br>

</div></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>