 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to
download. I found my old favourite, Geiss.
Geiss is probably "the best" program of its kind to exist. It was really
the first plugin that did more than just some monochrome osciliscope
lines. Back when it came out, just running it would melt CPUs... Today
we're more fortunate! ;-) Others have tried to do the same thing, and
indeed some of them have more options and features and buttons. But few
achieve the same style and simplicity as Geiss. It's just really well
thought out!)
I noticed one of the user comments. It basically says
"I was spoiled when I first tried this all those years ago. You will
be spoiled too. And, after tweaking the options while listening to your
favorite tunes, you'll notice it's THE NEXT FREAKIN' DAY!!1!!!!"
Made my literally LOL... ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote :
> [stuff]
Hey, where have versions 4 through 6 of you gone ?
Yeah, I know, off-topic, sorry ;-)
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to download. I
>found my old favourite, Geiss.
>
> Geiss is probably "the best" program of its kind to exist. It was really
> the first plugin that did more than just some monochrome osciliscope
> lines. Back when it came out, just running it would melt CPUs... Today
> we're more fortunate! ;-) Others have tried to do the same thing, and
> indeed some of them have more options and features and buttons. But few
> achieve the same style and simplicity as Geiss. It's just really well
> thought out!)
>
> I noticed one of the user comments. It basically says
>
> "I was spoiled when I first tried this all those years ago. You will be
> spoiled too. And, after tweaking the options while listening to your
> favorite tunes, you'll notice it's THE NEXT FREAKIN' DAY!!1!!!!"
>
> Made my literally LOL... ;-)
One of my favourites too, although even on the latest processors it still
struggles to achieve 60 (or even 30 sometimes) FPS at high resolutions (read
1920x1200). I wonder if they could rewrite it using the graphics card, the
routines used look like they would lend themselves very well to being
written on the graphics card.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to
> download. I found my old favourite, Geiss.
Ah yes, I remember Geiss. Back before I used foobar2000. Don't really
know of anything remotely as spiffy that works with fb2k tho. :(
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouth net> wrote in message
news:4709f097@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> > I was looking through a list of WinAmp visualisation plugins to
> > download. I found my old favourite, Geiss.
>
> Ah yes, I remember Geiss. Back before I used foobar2000. Don't really
> know of anything remotely as spiffy that works with fb2k tho. :(
>
> --
> Tim Cook
I was always partial to http://www.afn.org/~cthugha/ which may have been one
of the very first. It's from the BBS of my online adventures anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> One of my favourites too, although even on the latest processors it
> still struggles to achieve 60 (or even 30 sometimes) FPS at high
> resolutions (read 1920x1200). I wonder if they could rewrite it using
> the graphics card, the routines used look like they would lend
> themselves very well to being written on the graphics card.
I find this post shocking on a number of levels...
When I first had Geiss, I remember my mum's poor old Pentium I 233 MHz
thing with 16 MB RAM *dying* trying to run it. The poor thing would
stutter along at roughly 12 FPS with 320x240 at 30% letterbox. Last
night, I tried it on my current PC. Even at the highest settings I could
use, it was still exceeding 75 FPS. Seriously, the screen was just a
blur. It was *way* too fast.
I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm also
confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200. (Mine
won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to why you
would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Orchid XP v7
Four reinstalls this weekend, Andrew? ;-)
(Didn't you say the "vN" part of your signature was an indication of the
number of times you had to reinstall your OS?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7
>
> Four reinstalls this weekend, Andrew? ;-)
>
> (Didn't you say the "vN" part of your signature was an indication of the
> number of times you had to reinstall your OS?)
Actually, nearer 8 reinstalls, but hey...
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:53:27 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v7
>>
>> Four reinstalls this weekend, Andrew? ;-)
>>
>> (Didn't you say the "vN" part of your signature was an indication of
>> the number of times you had to reinstall your OS?)
>
> Actually, nearer 8 reinstalls, but hey...
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
A partial reinstall? ;-)
(fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:16:37 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS.
In animations that do not contain motion blur, such as video game movies,
the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is actually easily observable.
For example, compare these two movies:
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/torrents/supermariobros2-timeattack-peachonly-genisto.avi.torrent
(31.9 MB)
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/torrents/supermariobros2-tas-princessonly-adelikat.avi.torrent
(15.4 MB)
It is clearly seen that the 60 fps movie (the latter) is
smoother than the other, which is jittery in movement.
In motion blurred video such as television shows, the shortcoming
of a low FPS such as 24 or 25 is not as easily seen, but a trained
eye can still notice it.
--
Joel Yliluoma - http://bisqwit.iki.fi/
: comprehension = 1 / (2 ^ precision)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
