don't rely too much on software

[holly]

VJ shoots your dog and rapes your sister....

VJ rapes your dog and shoots your sister....

Hmmmm....

Billy Idol? Sure, he was hardcore...
:haha:
Oh, now I know you're just being funny!

[Stuart]

serious as a heart attack. I'm sure that the many of you who grew up with your music being spoon fed to you by MTV have a different idea of what Billy Idol is about but in 1976, when forming the band Chelsea (the progenitor of Gen X), he was punk rock through and through. By my math (not the new kind) Cobain was all of 9 at the time.

sorry, just trying to keep with the spirit of a good flamewar <smooooch>

[sketchyj]

when i was 14 i thought that billy idol was the shit...the white wedding video was cool enough to disturb my parents. but i don't think billy will ever be seen by history as having the legendary status as a performer like cobain. perhaps i should have compared cobain with michael bolton or rick springfield in my analogy but the point is still the same. i'm sure vanilla ice has a lot of gigs under his belt too, should we revere him? how about MC Hammer? Kip Winger? need i go on?

thank you Stuart for standing up, being a man, and clearing up what you meant by your words. Doesn't feel too good when people make assumptions, does it? I can sympathize about how you feel, yet you have to admit your words either needed to be cleared up or become ripe targets for scrutiny. I would just like to also say that anyone who would dare to claim that they gave a great VJ performance while they played canned content and sauntered around the club in the world of 2005 are a joke of a VJ. They are the rick dees of the VJ world. They are the Kasey Kasems. If you went to watch the Chemical Brothers perform what would you think if they were standing up there just chillin back. Sounded like to me you were advocating long loops and that sorta insults the performer who enjoys live performance in my view

[inopiaCGA]

I can't actually tell who you're replying to but you're wrong. On dual processor systems in any unix variant a process can lock down a processor for exclusive use. It's frowned upon but you can do it if you really want. Probably possible under Mac OS X as well.

I that's the case, I stand corrected. But you gotta agree with me that no program should ever do such a thing, hog a CPU/Core with nops

And actually 2D does require more cpu than 3d. Shake compositing workstations usually have higher specs than Maya or 3D Studio Max workstations. The reason is bandwidth, in 2d you are pulling maybe 30 layers and mixing them together while in 3d you are usually using smaller texture files.

And actually, it doesn't I grew up on demo programming, so I know a thing or two about graphics processing. 3D cards these days come equipped with a lot more than just raw polypushing power, and can easily be used for '2D' effects. It kinda means you're using your card for things it was meant to do, but it sure is a shitload faster than using your cpu. For instance, the vj system we (CGA) are working on uses pixelshaders do most RGB-space translations like brightness/contrast. And how do you think those cool postprocessing effects are achieven on xbox and ps2 games? That's all done with render2texture effects, no software processing involved whatsoever.

I mean, the amiga had cooler graphics and demos than the atari st, partly because it had the blitter chip wich could move large chunks of memory around. In demos they used this feature to do 3D and 2D effects. Hardware doesn't discriminate between them, programmers do

[thomase]

just my two cents:

first ofg all I thought grunge was nothing but slow punk anyway and I never lijed the attitude of Cobain ("I don't wanna be a rockstar" wince wince - DON'T SIGN A MAJOR DEAL, then...)

Apart from that: If we want to stick to that analogy: Do you really think someone like Bowie played a real GOOD first gig without practice and experience? Don't think so...

[DrEskaton]

Originally posted by inopiaCGA
[B]I that's the case, I stand corrected. But you gotta agree with me that no program should ever do such a thing, hog a CPU/Core with nops

it's useful when you want guarenteed real time performance for example for uncompressed video i/o or time critical audio programming.

And actually, it doesn't I grew up on demo programming, so I know a thing or two about graphics processing.

we're talking about two different things and you've missed my point.

[holly]

Why does this thread still exist? Softwareheads are no more likely to go hardware than gayboys are to go straight. To each his own and la-di-dah.

One man's Billy Idol is the next guy's Pat Boone. Now stop comparing yourselves to people who were successful and well known. None of us has the squat to claim that level of importance.

[DrEskaton]

Originally posted by holly
Softwareheads are no more likely to go hardware than gayboys are to go straight. To each his own and la-di-dah.

I'm not sure what that says about those of us with hybrid software/hardware rigs. less said the better I guess.....

[karl]

yeah, thanks a lot Holly, now i gotta pay even more money to my therapist!

[karl]

Originally posted by inopiaCGA
And actually, it doesn't I grew up on demo programming, so I know a thing or two about graphics processing. 3D cards these days come equipped with a lot more than just raw polypushing power, and can easily be used for '2D' effects. It kinda means you're using your card for things it was meant to do, but it sure is a shitload faster than using your cpu. For instance, the vj system we (CGA) are working on uses pixelshaders do most RGB-space translations like brightness/contrast. And how do you think those cool postprocessing effects are achieven on xbox and ps2 games? That's all done with render2texture effects, no software processing involved whatsoever.

I mean, the amiga had cooler graphics and demos than the atari st, partly because it had the blitter chip wich could move large chunks of memory around. In demos they used this feature to do 3D and 2D effects. Hardware doesn't discriminate between them, programmers do

Just to be nitpicking i would say that 2d could or could not be faster than 3d. Especially on the Amiga since the blitter only could blitt in planar mode. So if you needed to say read a pixel, rotate it and draw it again you had to convert planar pixels to chunky, rotate it and convert back to planar. This made effects like rotation be slower than effects like plasma. Todays GPU?s has strongpoints and weakpoints just like this so there is noway to say if 2d is slower/faster than 3d without having to look at the actuall processing being done. This becomes especially troublesome when you have to read back data from the GPU, if that is an requirement for your process the time render will skyrocket.

happy hacking