hi,
about this thread comparing PDP and Gridflow, there's one thing good into having typed data is that they don't need expensive conversion whenever you want to use them in an i/o operation.
and i care about performance...
recently, a video artist also told me : "mm, jitter, yeh, that's about doing abstract math with images but i don't actually need to do that" ( and me neither ) so i don't think i'll go that way...
but, it's good to have different and complementary tools... so, stop the war.
cheers, sevy
but, it's good to have different and complementary tools...
exactly! i for one am very happy to have so many options in the pd world... in fact thats one of the main reasons i use pd.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Yves Degoyon wrote:
recently, a video artist also told me : "mm, jitter, yeh, that's about doing abstract math with images but i don't actually need to do that" ( and me neither ) so i don't think i'll go that way... but, it's good to have different and complementary tools...
so, stop the war.
War?
What are you talking about?
Do you mean: "stop the discussion"?
This nice principle of diversity and "live & let live" and such, shouldn't be used as a tool for your stopping of a discussion that wasn't gone wrong, even though it is about things that you don't need.
Thanks anyway.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju
Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Yves Degoyon wrote:
recently, a video artist also told me : "mm, jitter, yeh, that's about doing abstract math with images but i don't actually need to do that" ( and me neither ) so i don't think i'll go that way... but, it's good to have different and complementary tools...
so, stop the war.
War?
What are you talking about?
i think you spend a lot of time explaining why Gridflow is better than the rest, and because it uses abstract types is not a good reason for me...
well, what about spending this time actually improving Gridflow?
we had so many mails explaining how Gridflow was so very well designed, sorry, i tried it once and thought that wasn't fitting any of my needs.
i'm actually looking for a video package that would be able to play 7 videos with an acceptable frame rate, do you think Gridflow can do this ? for now, i try to optimize PDP for being close to doing that ( but that xvideo thing is slow ).
cheers, sevy
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 10:33:01PM -0400, Yves Degoyon wrote:
i think you spend a lot of time explaining why Gridflow is better than the rest, and because it uses abstract types is not a good reason for me...
Being an abstract tool is actually what makes GF so interesting. GF is to visual what MSP is to sound. Instead of an effect tools with presets, GF is about the maths that makes all those vj softwares so cool. Sadly, most users don't want to understand the maths because they're too busy playing with "ready made" softwares. I know nothing about visual effect tools and the vjing culture, but I'm pretty sure that GF can do lots of things that most vj toys can't, like teaching "how things works" to those who care.
well, what about spending this time actually improving Gridflow?
GF is improving. With a little less pragmatic attitude, your perception of this "too asbtract" tool would also improve; you remind me of this old movie, "La fête", where Tati played a postman fascinated with american efficiency...
we had so many mails explaining how Gridflow was so very well designed, sorry, i tried it once and thought that wasn't fitting any of my needs.
Mathieu can write as much as he want, even if GF didn't fit your needs the first time you tried it. I seen worse on PD mailing list, just remember the Nato spam...
i'm actually looking for a video package that would be able to play 7 videos with an acceptable frame rate, do you think Gridflow can do this ? for now, i try to optimize PDP for being close to doing that ( but that xvideo thing is slow ).
Throw money at the problem: get a very fast computer, and buy the right software, because there must be one out there; I've met plenty of artists that just "do it", regardless of constraints and philosophical issues.
-- Marc
GF is improving. With a little less pragmatic attitude, your perception of this "too asbtract" tool would also improve; you remind me of this old movie, "La fête", where Tati played a postman fascinated with american efficiency...
what a joke ! i would like to play 7 tati's movies with an acceptable frame rate, that's it ))
btw, what annoyed me is the (wrong) information about PDP ( it can actually do convolution ), but why giving an advice speaking of PDP when one confesses : i don't really use PDP...
i must say only users are entitled to do that ( and, don't worry, they do ).
sevy
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 01:29:17AM -0400, Yves Degoyon wrote:
btw, what annoyed me is the (wrong) information about PDP ( it can actually do convolution )
Good!
- i'm really bored with people praising their own software,
i must say only users are entitled to do that
You're fully entitled to praise and document your own software, since you probably use it... :-) -- Marc
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Yves Degoyon wrote:
btw, what annoyed me is the (wrong) information about PDP ( it can actually do convolution ),
Dude, why don't you read my mails carefully.
I didn't say PDP doesn't support convolution. I said that in GF, convolution matrices and pictures are the same stuff. I didn't say anything about PDP's concept of convolution.
That's the second time in a row. Today you also insinuated that I'm warring against PDP.
- i'm really bored with people praising their own software, i must say
only users are entitled to do that ( and, don't worry, they do ).
I use my own software. I am a user.
Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju