• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: OpenGL vs QuickTime for slideshow transitions
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OpenGL vs QuickTime for slideshow transitions


  • Subject: Re: OpenGL vs QuickTime for slideshow transitions
  • From: "R. Scott Thompson" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:39:54 -0500


On Sep 30, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Paul Collins wrote:

Our Envision application* includes slideshow functionality with wipes and dissolves using NSImage / Quartz drawing. We'd like to switch to either QuickTime or OpenGL to do these transitions more efficiently. So far, it seems like either system is capable of displaying two static images and doing a transition from one to another. iPhoto uses OpenGL; I'm not sure which Keynote uses for it's lovely 3D transitions.

My impression is most people prefer OpenGL for this sort of thing, but QuickTime may be a great deal easier to code to (and may well use OpenGl itself). So why not do things the easy way and use QuickTime?

Just some thoughts on the subject:

OpenGL is going to require the user to have a video card capable of handling the transition code. The number of machines that aren't capable of handling that kind of graphics processing are falling, but there are still some out there. Depending on your market segment that may be an issue. Also, using OpenGL you're going to have to write a lot of the transition code yourself. For simple things like cross dissolves and such, that should be pretty easy. For more complex transitions, however, maintaining your own code may be more trouble than it's worth.

QuickTime has a large number of built in filters, effects, and transitions. The perform reasonably well and don't require special hardware. I don't know how many third-party transitions etc... are available, but the QuickTime transition architecture is extensible in theory. As Mac OS X matures, there is a higher chance that the transitions it has will be accelerated when appropriate hardware is available.

Depending on your system requirements, a third option is to look at Core Image. The only public information available on Core Image that I'm aware of is found at:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/core.html

But as you can see from the bullet list at the bottom of the screen, there are a large number of filters and a few transitions available through core image. The document above also mentions that Core Image takes advantage of the GPU when available so it promises to be very high performance. Core Image is also mentioned to be extensible by third parties which means you wouldn' t have to maintain all that code yourself.

Scott

--
Macintosh Software Engineering Consulting Services
Visit my resume at <http://homepage.mac.com/easco/RSTResume.html>

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >OpenGL vs QuickTime for slideshow transitions (From: Paul Collins <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: setObjectForKey in NSMutableDictionary in Java
  • Next by Date: Re: linking to private frameworks
  • Previous by thread: OpenGL vs QuickTime for slideshow transitions
  • Next by thread: setObjectForKey in NSMutableDictionary in Java
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread