Type of video stream (ci / gpu) and connecting them

stephanegattoni

Hi everybody,

I'm a little bit in trouble to understand the core difference between vid-gpu and vid-ci stream, can anyone explain the difference and the advantages and inconvenient of each ? Is it possible to connect an actor with ci stream with another with gpu ?

I'm working with Izz 2.0.5 on MacOS

Thank you for your help,
Stephane

DusX

You will have to convert the stream using a image to texture actor. The difference is Suttle. CI is used exclusively by Apples tools (and uses both gpu and cput. . If i am correct). Quarts composer ect.. while vid-gpu is fully gpu based. CI is faster that vid-cpu (in general) but vid-gpu is faster again (in general). Since some operations must run on the cpu we will require all formats for some time. My own practice is to stick to gpu as much as possible. And if I must use cpu or CI I downsize the stream to 1/2 or 1/4 the size. This saves processing power.. it's also important to note that the conversions are processing heavy, so you dont want to be switching back and forth much. @mark perhaps you can add some clarity to the differences.

stephanegattoni

Thank you DusX for your explanations.
Does the image to texture actor exist somewhere ?

DusX

Currently in 2.0.5 the way to convert an CI video stream to a GPU stream is to use both the 'Image to Video' actor and the 'Video to Texture' actor.

I believe this process is identical to what an 'Image to Texture' actor would be doing internally.

mark

Dear @stephanegattoni and @DusX,

First, some clarifications about vid-ci. @DusX's is correct when he says that Apple's Core Image video can be either CPU or GPU based. But, in Isadora, all ci-video should end up on the GPU. (It is possible that some Quartz Composer output may not be this way... but even QC generally ends up on the GPU.)

He is also right to say that the only way to convert an CI video stream to a GPU stream is to use both the 'Image to Video' actor and the 'Video to Texture' actor. But, unfortunately, this conversion is going to be very, very inefficient (i.e., slow.)

I need to create both a gpu -> ci and a ci -> gpu conversion actor. If I do the conversation internally, it will be very fast. I will make sure that the next release has these actors.

Best Wishes,

Mark

stephanegattoni

Thank you Mark for your detailed answer.

All best,
Stephane

mark

Dear @stephanegattoni,

I created the Texture to Core Image and Core Image to Texture converters. We're testing them now, and they will be in the next release.

Best,

Mark

stephanegattoni

Great THX !

Stephane

Armando

Still, Mark and DusX,

I don't get the need of these conversions with the 2.0.5 version of Isadora : since now we have cpu and gpu in all inputs inputs and projector why do we need a second type of gpu tratment of the image (i.e.) the CI actors. Is this in order to be able to integrate the Quartz composer actors that the community develops?

Michel

@Armando

I think it comes handy if you want to mix cpu, ci and gpu actors in the same chain.

Best Michel

MABO

Hi everyone,

I'm actually testing this great new Isadora 2.0.5.

I think I get the most of new features and the difference between GPU and CPU preferences.

I just wonder if there is (or will be) a way to use all the "classic effects" (dots, motion blur etc...) in a GPU chain to keep best performances ?

Best.

Matt

DusX

The 'old' effects are cpu based... and many are being ported to GPU. There will be many GPU effects available in a soon to be released version, however; they are not exact clones of the previous cpu effects. I still use the old effects as needed. This purpose is why I requested that the video converter from gpu to cpu include setting the size so that a smaller cpu stream could be easily used along side a gpu stream (I typically 1/2 the size)