Thanx for your reply...

GEM seems to be an absolutely exciting plateform, as I tried messing around for several days.

You told me about PDP and GridFlow. Shame is that I'm only working on Windows XP. So, sorry for PDP.

But if I'm right I can run GridFlow under windows, no ?

Arf...

> Message du 23/11/04 � 10h41
> De : "Johannes M Zmoelnig"
> A : tboulanger@voila.fr
> Copie � : pd-list@iem.at
> Objet : Re: [PD] Framestein and GEM
> " wrote:
> > Hi listers !
> > Hmmm, as everybody knows, PD is build for making really interesting audio stuff as video.
> > So I had a look at GEM and Framestein and I have to say that I'm quiet lost :
> > - Are GEM and Framestein utterly apart one from each other ?
> yes
>
> > I mean is it possible to merge GEM objects with Framestein ones and conversely ?
> no
>
> > - As for the rendering window : I noticed that GEM came with create/destroy objects and that Framestein came with its own rendering window : is it possible to have a unique window which displays both GEM and Framestein patches ?
> no
>
> > - And in term of possibilities : eventually, which one of Framesteind and GEM is the most powerfull tool ?
> this is a question i cannot answer.
>
> > Are they both specialised in a certain area ?
> yes
> Framestein is about image-processing (pixel-oriented, 2D)
> Gem is about computer-graphics (vector-oriented, 3D, with some
> possibilities to do pixel-processing)
>
>
>
> > These questions may appear to be stupid but I have to hear about your opinions... (the goal : creating a video clip to accompaign a track I've done recently, an interactive one to say...)
>
> well, all pd-packages that have something to do with graphics (3D, 2D,
> video,...) can be used to create "a video clip to accompaign a track".
> you could even do this in plain pd (remember franks tgb-patch), it is
> basically a matter of aesthetics.
>
> as for power of Framestein and Gem:
> Framestein is Windos-only; Gem is available on win, lin and osX (older
> versions are available for irix too)
> I have no idea how "big" Framestein is, but Gem is contains about 400
> objects (half of which are rather useless if you don't know how to
> program openGL in a patcher language)
> Framestein allows multiple "frames" (even embedded into a patch), Gem
> has only one single window (which will change in the future...)
> Framestein needs your CPU, Gem needs a hw-accelerated graphics card.
> Framestein allows you to use Photoshop-plugins, Gem does not (but has
> some (un)common fx built in)
>
>
> > PS : about PDP, is it a customed-video oriented version of PD ? I think this one doesn't exist on XP)
>
> no, pdp is just another library to do graphics.
> it is (basically) oriented on doing video-processing, and is highly
> optimized.
> if you have ever heard of "forth", go pdp.
> if not, there is a library called pidip (which is an extension to pdp)
> which has some high-level video-effects plus a lot of other cool stuff
> (like streaming, ...)
>
> and best: pdp/pidip are available (only) on linux+osX
>
>
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> do not forget GridFlow.
>
> > Thanx for your support !
>
> Gem, Framestein, pdp and GridFlow are really completely different
> things, although all are dedicated to produce some "graphical" output.
>
> I think the biggest difference is not in possibilities but rather in the
> "way of thinking".
> so you should look at all of them carefully and then decide which fits
> you and your need best.
>
>
> mfg.a.sdr
> IOhannes
>
>