Hi all,
why is pix_write numbering files like this ? : 00000 00001 00002 ... 00253 ...
and pix_multiimage is supposed to read files with 'clear' numbering like this: 0 1 2 .. 256
in this situation is a little bit complicated to write and read the shots.. I solve situation with renaming file using [ggee/shell].
I think, it will be clearer to use one type of numbering. Or I am am wrong ?
f.
Hi,
I totally agree with you Fero, I experienced the same difficulty to use images written with pix_write in pix_multiimage. I made a script to rename the files. But it could good to have an option like 'pix_write_naming_style' in pix_multiimage which can make both working together, isn't it ?
Cheers
a
-- do it yourself http://antoine.villeret.free.fr
2013/3/19 Fero Kiraly fero.kiraly@gmail.com
Hi all,
why is pix_write numbering files like this ? : 00000 00001 00002 ... 00253 ...
and pix_multiimage is supposed to read files with 'clear' numbering like this: 0 1 2 .. 256
in this situation is a little bit complicated to write and read the shots.. I solve situation with renaming file using [ggee/shell].
I think, it will be clearer to use one type of numbering. Or I am am wrong ?
f.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
2013/3/19 Fero Kiraly fero.kiraly@gmail.com
why is pix_write numbering files like this ? : 00000 00001 00002 ... 00253 ...
because it makes it easier to sort files alphabetically.
and pix_multiimage is supposed to read files with 'clear' numbering
like
this: 0 1 2 .. 256
because it's borked (for compatibility reasons)
On 2013-03-19 14:34, Antoine Villeret wrote:
Hi,
I totally agree with you Fero, I experienced the same difficulty to use images written with pix_write in pix_multiimage. I made a script to rename the files. But it could good to have an option like 'pix_write_naming_style' in pix_multiimage which can make both working together, isn't it ?
as a matter of fact, i think [pix_multiimage] is deprecated, and you should use an abstraction wrapper using [pix_buffer] and [makefilename] instead. thus, you can choose the naming scheme you like.
similarily, [pix_write] can easily build as an abstraction using [pix_buffer] and [makefilename], so you can choose the naming scheme you like. Gem already comes with an abstraction implementation of [pix_write] (though it's currently overwritten by the Gem built-in of the same name and functionality)
fgamdsr IOhannes
-
Antoine Villeret -
Fero Kiraly -
IOhannes m zmoelnig