Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums.
I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write.
The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. It doesn't matter if I record frames with pix_write and build a movie with ffmpeg or I record a whole movie with pix_record, the resulting movie is faster anyway. (I can confirm it 100% as I also record audio at the same time, and it is indeed longer)
This happens on a machine with ATI card, both in ubuntu jaunty and windows with Pd-ext 42.5 rc 5.
What is even weirder is that if I load the recorded video into Pd with pix_film it tells me the video has 115 fps, but with any other software fps is between 20 and 30 (which I assume should be the proper framerate).
Anybody experienced the same? What could I do about it?
Today I'll have the chance to try it on another machine. Thanks
Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto:
Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums.
I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write.
The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. It doesn't matter if I record frames with pix_write and build a movie with ffmpeg or I record a whole movie with pix_record, the resulting movie is faster anyway. (I can confirm it 100% as I also record audio at the same time, and it is indeed longer)
This happens on a machine with ATI card, both in ubuntu jaunty and windows with Pd-ext 42.5 rc 5.
What is even weirder is that if I load the recorded video into Pd with pix_film it tells me the video has 115 fps, but with any other software fps is between 20 and 30 (which I assume should be the proper framerate).
Anybody experienced the same? What could I do about it?
Hi, I only have experience with pix_write oby (it generate tif/png/jpeg image sequence) and it write at framerate specified on the gemwin oby. If you have [gemwin 50] you have 50 frame per second image sequnce, if you set [gemwin 25] you have 25 .....
Hi, thanks for your fast reply! I think I know how to use the object, but it seems it doesn't behave as it should, or I am missing something.
I've been using pix_write with [auto 1( or in combination with pix_snap, and my gemwin is set to 20.
The issue is that when ffmpeg build the movie out of the images sequence (at 20 fps), the resulting video is shorter then it should (i.e. 1 minute instead of 3). ...the same happens when I use pix_record.
does anybody have an idea about it?
cheers,
M
2010/8/9 Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ciccolix@tiscalinet.it
Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto:
Hi all,
it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums.
I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write.
The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. It doesn't matter if I record frames with pix_write and build a movie with ffmpeg or I record a whole movie with pix_record, the resulting movie is faster anyway. (I can confirm it 100% as I also record audio at the same time, and it is indeed longer)
This happens on a machine with ATI card, both in ubuntu jaunty and windows with Pd-ext 42.5 rc 5.
What is even weirder is that if I load the recorded video into Pd with pix_film it tells me the video has 115 fps, but with any other software fps is between 20 and 30 (which I assume should be the proper framerate).
Anybody experienced the same? What could I do about it?
Hi, I only have experience with pix_write oby (it generate tif/png/jpeg image sequence) and it write at framerate specified on the gemwin oby. If you have [gemwin 50] you have 50 frame per second image sequnce, if you set [gemwin 25] you have 25 .....
Le 09/08/2010 12:40, Marco Donnarumma a écrit :
Hi, thanks for your fast reply! I think I know how to use the object, but it seems it doesn't behave as it should, or I am missing something.
I've been using pix_write with [auto 1( or in combination with pix_snap, and my gemwin is set to 20.
The issue is that when ffmpeg build the movie out of the images sequence (at 20 fps), the resulting video is shorter then it should (i.e. 1 minute instead of 3). ...the same happens when I use pix_record.
when recording, the fps usually drop, because it need so much CPU that's pd can't do everything in real time. so pd time is 3 times slower than real time. (it will not render/record 20fps, but less)
what i usually do is to be able to play the sequence i want to record without human interaction (using only pd timing). so when i record it, everything is slower than real time, but the resulting video is correct.
c
does anybody have an idea about it?
cheers,
M
2010/8/9 Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella <ciccolix@tiscalinet.it mailto:ciccolix@tiscalinet.it>
Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto: Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums. I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write. The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. It doesn't matter if I record frames with pix_write and build a movie with ffmpeg or I record a whole movie with pix_record, the resulting movie is faster anyway. (I can confirm it 100% as I also record audio at the same time, and it is indeed longer) This happens on a machine with ATI card, both in ubuntu jaunty and windows with Pd-ext 42.5 rc 5. What is even weirder is that if I load the recorded video into Pd with pix_film it tells me the video has 115 fps, but with any other software fps is between 20 and 30 (which I assume should be the proper framerate). Anybody experienced the same? What could I do about it? Hi, I only have experience with pix_write oby (it generate tif/png/jpeg image sequence) and it write at framerate specified on the gemwin oby. If you have [gemwin 50] you have 50 frame per second image sequnce, if you set [gemwin 25] you have 25 .....-- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK
PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto:
Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto:
Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums.
I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write.
The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one.
Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see in your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running.
here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. it help a lot to track this kind of problem. c
Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit :
Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto:
Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto:
Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums.
I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write.
The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one.
Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see in your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
@ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other.
@ Cirylle: ok, now maybe I understand. I'm actually already using a similar abstraction of yours to monitor fps :) My patch is completely automatic, it's a sonification/visualization of large amount of data, thus I just press a toggle to start it.
So: if while recording the fps monitor shows 10fps, it means that also pix_write will record only 10 frames per second and _not_ 20 as I stated in gemwin, is that correct?
I was probably wrong assuming that whatever fps is stated in gemwin will be the recorded fps, even though the machine can't reproduce it in real-time.
Ok, so, if I can only record at 10 fps, what do you suggest to finally have a recorded video with a decent framerate? (apart from changing machine...) I guess I could use ffmpeg to double the framerate, but the video might be jittery...
M
2010/8/9 cyrille henry ch@chnry.net
here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. it help a lot to track this kind of problem. c
Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit :
Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto:
Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto:
Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums.
I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write.
The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one.
Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive
motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see in your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 09/08/2010 13:58, Marco Donnarumma a écrit :
@ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other.
@ Cirylle: ok, now maybe I understand. I'm actually already using a similar abstraction of yours to monitor fps :) My patch is completely automatic, it's a sonification/visualization of large amount of data, thus I just press a toggle to start it.
So: if while recording the fps monitor shows 10fps, it means that also pix_write will record only 10 frames per second and _not_ 20 as I stated in gemwin, is that correct?
no, it will take 2 min to record 1min of video at 20fps.
I was probably wrong assuming that whatever fps is stated in gemwin will be the recorded fps, even though the machine can't reproduce it in real-time.
Ok, so, if I can only record at 10 fps, what do you suggest to finally have a recorded video with a decent framerate? (apart from changing machine...)
waite longer...
I guess I could use ffmpeg to double the framerate, but the video might be jittery...
no, the video will be perfect, since everything is done with pd time. pd time is no more real time, but that just a question of cpu/gpu. everything else should be exactly the same.
c
M
2010/8/9 cyrille henry <ch@chnry.net mailto:ch@chnry.net>
here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. it help a lot to track this kind of problem. c Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit : Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto: Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto: Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums. I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write. The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see in your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running. _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list-- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK
PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
oh, ok. Thanks Cyrille, you threw some light over my confusion.
I now understand what you meant. I'll give it a try waiting longer.
M
2010/8/9 cyrille henry ch@chnry.net
Le 09/08/2010 13:58, Marco Donnarumma a écrit :
@ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that
the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other.
@ Cirylle: ok, now maybe I understand. I'm actually already using a similar abstraction of yours to monitor fps :) My patch is completely automatic, it's a sonification/visualization of large amount of data, thus I just press a toggle to start it.
So: if while recording the fps monitor shows 10fps, it means that also pix_write will record only 10 frames per second and _not_ 20 as I stated in gemwin, is that correct?
no, it will take 2 min to record 1min of video at 20fps.
I was probably wrong assuming that whatever fps is stated in gemwin will be the recorded fps, even though the machine can't reproduce it in real-time.
Ok, so, if I can only record at 10 fps, what do you suggest to finally have a recorded video with a decent framerate? (apart from changing machine...)
waite longer...
I guess I could use ffmpeg to double the framerate, but the video might
be jittery...
no, the video will be perfect, since everything is done with pd time. pd time is no more real time, but that just a question of cpu/gpu. everything else should be exactly the same.
c
M
2010/8/9 cyrille henry <ch@chnry.net mailto:ch@chnry.net>
here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. it help a lot to track this kind of problem. c
Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit :
Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto: Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto: Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums. I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write. The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you seein your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running.
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list-- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK
PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
if you want a 1 min video, use a delay 60000 to start/stop. then, it will be perfect, even it it take 2 or 3 min to record...
c
Le 09/08/2010 15:31, Marco Donnarumma a écrit :
oh, ok. Thanks Cyrille, you threw some light over my confusion.
I now understand what you meant. I'll give it a try waiting longer.
M
2010/8/9 cyrille henry <ch@chnry.net mailto:ch@chnry.net>
Le 09/08/2010 13:58, Marco Donnarumma a écrit : @ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other. @ Cirylle: ok, now maybe I understand. I'm actually already using a similar abstraction of yours to monitor fps :) My patch is completely automatic, it's a sonification/visualization of large amount of data, thus I just press a toggle to start it. So: if while recording the fps monitor shows 10fps, it means that also pix_write will record only 10 frames per second and _not_ 20 as I stated in gemwin, is that correct? no, it will take 2 min to record 1min of video at 20fps. I was probably wrong assuming that whatever fps is stated in gemwin will be the recorded fps, even though the machine can't reproduce it in real-time. Ok, so, if I can only record at 10 fps, what do you suggest to finally have a recorded video with a decent framerate? (apart from changing machine...) waite longer... I guess I could use ffmpeg to double the framerate, but the video might be jittery... no, the video will be perfect, since everything is done with pd time. pd time is no more real time, but that just a question of cpu/gpu. everything else should be exactly the same. c M 2010/8/9 cyrille henry <ch@chnry.net <mailto:ch@chnry.net> <mailto:ch@chnry.net <mailto:ch@chnry.net>>> here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. it help a lot to track this kind of problem. c Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit : Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto: Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto: Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums. I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write. The problem is the recorded video is faster than the actual one. Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see in your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running. _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at>> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net-- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK
PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thanks Cyrille, I made different tests and I noticed what you said about the fps, that's a very good tip.
Besides, I realized that I can gain 5/6 fps moving the gemwin in another workspace (different from the one I actually see).
M
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:44 PM, cyrille henry ch@chnry.net wrote:
if you want a 1 min video, use a delay 60000 to start/stop. then, it will be perfect, even it it take 2 or 3 min to record...
c
Le 09/08/2010 15:31, Marco Donnarumma a écrit :
oh, ok. Thanks Cyrille, you threw some light over my confusion.
I now understand what you meant. I'll give it a try waiting longer.
M
2010/8/9 cyrille henry <ch@chnry.net mailto:ch@chnry.net>
Le 09/08/2010 13:58, Marco Donnarumma a écrit :
@ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other. @ Cirylle: ok, now maybe I understand. I'm actually already using a similar abstraction of yours to monitor fps :) My patch is completely automatic, it's a sonification/visualization of large amount of data, thus I just press a toggle to start it. So: if while recording the fps monitor shows 10fps, it means that also pix_write will record only 10 frames per second and _not_ 20 as I stated in gemwin, is that correct?no, it will take 2 min to record 1min of video at 20fps.
I was probably wrong assuming that whatever fps is stated in gemwin will be the recorded fps, even though the machine can't reproduce it in real-time. Ok, so, if I can only record at 10 fps, what do you suggest to finally have a recorded video with a decent framerate? (apart from changing machine...)waite longer...
I guess I could use ffmpeg to double the framerate, but the video might be jittery...no, the video will be perfect, since everything is done with pd time. pd time is no more real time, but that just a question of cpu/gpu. everything else should be exactly the same.
c
M 2010/8/9 cyrille henry <ch@chnry.net <mailto:ch@chnry.net> <mailto:ch@chnry.net <mailto:ch@chnry.net>>> here is a simple abstraction that output the real rendering frequency. it help a lot to track this kind of problem. c Le 09/08/2010 13:02, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella a écrit : Il 09/08/10 12.26, Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella ha scritto: Il 09/08/10 12.17, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto: Hi all, it's been a week now I'm struggling to record properly a GEM output, reading archives and forums. I have fairly complex audiovisual patch with multiple geos, four pix_snaps to create motion blur effect for 1280x320 res, and data exchange through local network. However I can record in a really good quality using both pix_record or pix_write. The problem is the recorded video is faster thanthe actual one.
Hi, apologize me if it is a dumb answer, but if you apply very intensive motion bur and other stuf in your patch the speed of what you see in your gem box will be very slow. The sequence of images that is generated will necessarily faster than what you see when the patch is running. _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at>> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list -- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net-- Marco Donnarumma aka TheSAD Independent New Media Arts Professional, Performer, Teacher - Edinburgh, UK
PORTFOLIO: http://marcodonnarumma.com LAB: http://www.thesaddj.com | http://cntrl.sourceforge.net | http://www.flxer.net EVENT: http://www.liveperformersmeeting.net
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Il 09/08/10 13.58, Marco Donnarumma ha scritto:
@ Lazzaro: yes I know, thanks for specifying, but the problem is that the duration of audio and video files I record don't match each other.
You can try to grab a rectangle of your desktop with recordmydesktop (from commandline) it accept also a jack connection for audio data so, if your system dont crash, you can record what you see and what you hear in your perceptive time. The output is a theora file rather compressed but usable. I was able to make this series of videos : http://vimeo.com/5708413 but considering the size of your project then this could also be a useless answer :)
-
cyrille henry -
Lazzaro Nicolò Ciccolella -
Marco Donnarumma