<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I have a situation where a image stream doesn't work for me since it pushes the image just the once. I need constant update.<br />
I have used a mixer with a near 0 value to change the image stream to a video stream, however; this is far from perfect and hit the cpu pretty heavy.<br />
Is there a more efficient way to bump a image to a video stream?</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/topic/451/most-efficient-way-to-convert-a-image-stream-to-a-video-stream</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 10:39:03 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.troikatronix.com/topic/451.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:00:03 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:26:20 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">OK, think I have the best of both worlds now.. I am using your table solution at 1/4 the stage frame-rate to send a message, so that if any patching (uses broadcast and listen) changes, the new modules get the update.<br />
I need to do more testing but this seems to be a good solution for my setup.</p>
<p dir="auto">thanks for the help Mark.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5884</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5884</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[DusX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:26:20 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:35:39 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Yes, a projector will use not use CPU to render an image if no image is present. There will be a tiny (and I mean tiny) CPU usage if you are changing the various input parameters -- but if no video stream is present, nothing is sent to the graphics card, etc.</p>
<div>
<div>Best Wishes,</div>
<div>Mark</div>
</div>]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5881</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5881</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[mark]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:35:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:15:24 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">OK, I have to start off by apologizing.. seems that the behavior I am seeing is due to a work around I had put in place for projectors, to auto hide if video stream was cut.<br />
But now that I understand more about your pull system, am I correct in assuming that a projector will not use cpu, if no video is supplied? How does this work if a image stream is present?<br />
I was using a tap tempo test on the video feed to control the on/off of the projector. This was working very well until now since all my media was video, I had only just added a picture player/slide show builder, this is how the issue developed.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5877</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5877</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[DusX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:15:24 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:13:50 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I figured that it was dropped to save CPU, as it makes sense an image doesn't change.<br />
I will put a sample patch together.. ASAP.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5876</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5876</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[DusX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:13:50 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:40:27 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Dear DusX,</p>
<div>Well, I guess I need to understand why there is a problem in the first place. Even when the video signal "drops" as you say it, there is a valid image at the output. I made the Video Mixer patch you describe. With the mix at 0 or 100%, the output wire is red (not sending anything) because the image isn't changing. But you can see that there is a valid video there by hovering the mouse over the output wire -- you'll see the image come up. </div>
<div>For the record, the answer to "Why does Isadora "drop" the connection?" is to be more efficient. There's no need for a "downstream" module to process the image if it hasn't actually changed.</div>
<div>Can you send me a simple example where this behavior is problematic for you? I need to see the situation clearly to help you solve the problem.</div>
<div>
<div>Best Wishes,</div>
<div>Mark</div>
</div>]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5861</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5861</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[mark]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:40:27 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:43:38 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Playing a little more I have found that I get a small performance increase by using the Video Fade actor rather than the Video Mixer.<br />
Since the fade is switching from 0 to 0.001 percent at the stages FPS, there is no visible effect, which is great, however; I suspect that a method that doesn't process the video data would be more effective.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5857</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5857</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[DusX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:43:38 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:28:55 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Interestingly, this looked like it should work, but if I run 2 of these 'streams' into a video mixer with the mix amount ramping upto 100 pausing X secs and then ramping down to 0 and waiting X seconds I still get the broken behavior.<br />
I get video output while the value is ramping, but once it is at either 0 or 100 % the video signal drops.<br />
By mixing a photo stream with a black video signal with values switching between 0 and 0.001 I can create a solid stream that doesn't get dropped when going into the same crossfade mix I described a second ago.<br />
Is there anything that distinguishes a video stream from an image stream, that might be changed when a photo stream is mixed with a video stream?<br />
Simply trying to create a video stream by sending multiple images streams doesn't seem to convince the Video Mixer actor?</p>
<p dir="auto">If you need more detail I can create a minimized example patch.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5853</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5853</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[DusX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:28:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:24:55 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Thanks Mark.. I will give this a go. I figured there must be a less CPU intense method.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5833</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5833</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[DusX]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:24:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:15:27 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">thanks.  this solve my PUSH problem too.  ck</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5830</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5830</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[ckim]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:15:27 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Fri, 16 Jan 1970 17:31:15 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Dear DusX,</p>
<div>Try the attached patch as an example -- it uses a table actor and quickly switches between the two inputs, which are in fact the same image. This causes a continuous stream of the image at the output, and should not add noticeable CPU.</div>
<div>
<div>Best Wishes,</div>
<div>Mark</div>
</div>
<p dir="auto"><a href="/uploads/files/FileUpload/18/f5219e-push-still-image.izz">f5219e-push-still-image.izz</a></p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5816</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5816</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[mark]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1970 17:31:15 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Most efficient way to convert a image stream to a video stream? on Fri, 16 Jan 1970 17:34:12 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">by image you mean picture-player  video out, using envelope gen plus videofader actor works for my project.</p>
<p dir="auto">best bts</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5801</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.troikatronix.com/post/5801</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[[[global:guest]]]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1970 17:34:12 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>