hey dudley, I think at this point it would help to see your patch... marius.
Dudley Brooks wrote:
chris clepper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Dudley Brooks <dbrooks@runforyourlife.org mailto:dbrooks@runforyourlife.org> wrote:
In short: How do you use snap/pix_snap/pix_record (or maybe something else and pix_snap?) to capture the output of a *complicated* patch?
[gemhead 99] | | [pix_snap]
Of course! Ingenious!
However ... I tried it, and, even though the frame count output of pix_record churned out frame numbers, the resulting file was only one frame long and that frame only showed one of the geos. I even made the priorities of the various geos' gemheads explicitly lower and it still didn't work.
I can't figure out why that particular geo registered -- none of the geo's were connected to pix_snap. That's the intention, right? I also tried connecting several of the geos to pix_snap and the results were still the same: the movie had only one frame, which contained only one geo -- even when that particular geo was the only one which was *not* connected to pix_snap. So the connections were irrelevant.
I assume it has something to do with rendering/buffering, but I don't know enough about those.
-- Dudley
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list