Music
July 21, 2015
broken beds
July 21, 2015
jerkiness
Music
July 3, 2015
opening windows
July 3, 2015
drink 'n monotype print
June 17, 2015
June 17, 2015
(retroactively posted Nov 2015)
Recordings:
long losta cola
Comment...
Music
May 1, 2015
not seventy eight again
May 1, 2015
drink 'n stencil
April 30, 2015
April 30, 2015
(retroactively posted Nov 2015)
Recordings:
last chance for the apes
Comment...
Music
April 10, 2015
alternate form
April 10, 2015
Art dump - Jan 2015, pencil
April 1, 2015
April 1, 2015
(retroactively posted Nov 2015)
Recordings:
no fools flat
Comment...
My new mp3 player!
March 22, 2015
This week's distraction is my new minimal HTML5 audio player, which is about 8kb of HTML/CSS/JS (or 3kb gzipped), and available here. The HTML5 audio tag does all of the work, this just does a basic AJAX-fetched media library, searching, and playlisting. I made it for all (1500 or so) of my recordings, but it should be pretty reusable...
March 22, 2015
Yes, no visualization, but that'd be so 1990s...
Recordings:
not the odds
2 Comments
Music
November 6, 2014
spheresofwet
November 6, 2014
Music
October 29, 2014
scheduling
October 29, 2014
my own private can of worms
October 28, 2014
First, from a recent 'git log' command:
October 28, 2014
commit f94d5a07541a672b4446248409568c20bca9487d
Author: Justin <justin@localhost>
Date: Sun Sep 11 21:52:27 2005 +0000
Vss2Git
diff --git a/jmde/mediaitem.h b/jmde/mediaitem.h*
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..52b8a8f
--- /dev/null
++ b/jmde/mediaitem.h
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
#ifndef _MEDIAITEM_H_
#define _MEDIAITEM_H_
#include "pcmsrc.h"
#include "../WDL/string.h"
class MediaItem
{
public:
double m_position;
double m_length;
double m_startoffs;
double m_fade_in_len, m_fade_out_len;
int m_fade_in_shape, m_fade_out_shape;
double m_volume, m_pan;
WDL_String m_name;
PCM_source *m_src;
};
class AudioChannel
{
WDL_PtrList<MediaItem> m_items;
double m_volume, m_pan;
bool m_mute, m_solo;
WDL_String m_name;
// recording source stuff, too
// effect processor list
// getsamples type interface
};
#endif
* Trivia: guess what jmde (JMDE) stands for?
..and to think, back when we used VSS we didn't even have commit messages! Soon after, "AudioChannel" became instantiable and went on to be known as "MediaTrack", and as one would hope many other things ended up changing.
Wow, 9 years have gone by.
I've been having a blast this week working on something that let me make this:
The interesting bit of this is not the contents of the video itself -- 3 hasty first-takes with drums, bass, and guitar, each with 2 cameras (a Canon 6D and a Contour Roam 2) -- but how it was put together.
I've spent much of the last week experimenting with improving the video features of REAPER, specifically adding support for fades and video processing. This is a ridiculously large can of worms to open, so I'm keeping it mostly contained in my office and studio.
Working on video features is reminding me of when I was first starting work on what would become REAPER: I was focused on doing things that I could use then and there for things I wanted to make. It is incredibly satisfying to work this way. So now, I'm doing it in a branch (thank you git), as it is useful for me, but so incredibly far from the usability standard that REAPER represents now (even if you argue that REAPER is poorly designed, it's still 100x better than what I've done this week). You can't go put half-baked, poor performing, completely-programmer-oriented video features into a 9 year old program.
The syntax has since been simplified a bit, but basically you have meta-video items which can combine other video items on the fly. So you can write new transitions or customize existing transitions while you work (which is something I love about JSFX).
I'm going to keep working on this, it might get there someday. Former Vegas fans, fear not, REAPER isn't going to become a video editor. I'm just going for a taste...
6 Comments
Music
August 13, 2014
hookworms
August 13, 2014
licecap 1.25beta 3
July 24, 2014
I just posted (to our prerelease site) LICEcap 1.25 beta 3, which includes support for using transparency for smaller images. I had some fun debugging this (including some very stupid mistakes on my part that took about an entire day to debug, oops).
July 24, 2014
I also had some fun writing logic to decide what to do when a pixel could be encoded as transparent, but also could be well-represented by an indexed color. Iniitially I had it only use the indexed value if the previous pixel was indexed, but it ended up being quite a bit better to do track the occurence of transparent pixels and pixels of that index, and use the one that is more common. There is probably a better algorithm to use here, but that saw some good gains. For comparison, I ran 1.24 and 1.25 beta 3 at the same time for a stupid demo video. The 1.24 version was 2.5MB, the 1.25 beta 3 version was 1.5MB. WIN. It ultimately is highly dependent on the content, though, so I might look at trying some other things out...
checking assumptions
July 15, 2014
Very often in computer code integers are divided by powers of two, such as 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and so on). These divisions are much faster than dividing by other numbers (since computers represent the underlying number in binary). In C/C++, there are two ways this type of division is typically expressed: normal division (x/256), or a shift (x<<8). These two methods produce the same results for non-negative values, and depending on the meaning of the code in question, (x/256) is often more readable, and thus I use it regularly.
July 15, 2014
If x is signed and is negative, division rounds towards 0, whereas the shift rounds towards negative infinity, but in situations where rounding of negative values is not important, I had generally assumed that modern compilers would generate similarly efficient code (reducing x/256 into a single x86 sar instruction).
It turns out, testing with a two modern compilers (and one slightly out of date compiler), this is not the case.
Here is the C code:
void b(int r);
void f(int v)
{
int i;
for (i=0;i<v/256;i++) b(v > 0 ? v/65536 : 0);
}
void f2(int v)
{
int i;
for (i=0;i<(v>>8);i++) b(v > 0 ? v >> 16 : 0);
}
Ideally, a compiler should generate identical code for each of these functions. In the case of the loop counter, if v is less than 0, how it is rounded makes no difference. In the case of the parameter to b(), the code v >> 16 is only evaluated if v is known to be above 0.
Let's look at the output of some compilers (removing decoration and unrelated code). I've marked some code as bold to signify instructions that could be eliminated (with slight changes to the surrounding instructions):
- Apple LLVM version 5.1 (clang-503.0.40) (based on LLVM 3.4svn)
Xcode 5.1.1 on OSX 10.9.4
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin13.3.0
Command line flags: -O2 -fomit-frame-pointerf(): # using divides cmpl $256, %edi jl LBB0_3 # if v is less than 256, skip loop # v is known to be 256 or greater. movl %edi, %ebx sarl $31, %ebx # ebx=0xffffffff if negative, 0 if non-negative movl %ebx, %r14d shrl $24, %r14d # r14d=0xff if negative, 0 if non-negative addl %edi, %r14d # r14d = (v+255) if v negative, v if v non-negative sarl $8, %r14d # r14d = v/256 shrl $16, %ebx # this will make ebx 65535 if v negative, 0 if v non-negative addl %edi, %ebx # ebx = (v+65535) if v negative, v if v non-negative sarl $16, %ebx # ebx = v/65536 # interestingly, the optimizer used its knowledge of v being greater than 0 to remove the ternary conditional expression completely. xorl %ebp, %ebp LBB0_2: movl %ebx, %edi callq _b incl %ebp cmpl %r14d, %ebp jl LBB0_2 LBB0_3: f2(): # using shifts movl %edi, %ebp sarl $8, %ebp # ebp = v>>8 testl %ebp, %ebp jle LBB1_3 # if less than or equal to 0, skip movl %edi, %eax sarl $16, %eax # eax = v>>16 xorl %ebx, %ebx testl %edi, %edi cmovgl %eax, %ebx # if v is greater than 0, set ebx to eax # the optimizer could also have removed the xorl/testl/cmovgl sequence as well LBB1_2: movl %ebx, %edi callq _b decl %ebp jne LBB1_2 LBB1_3:In the first function (division), the LLVM optimizer appears to have removed the ternary expression (checking to see if v was greater than 0), likely because it knew that if the loop was running, v was greater than 0. Unfortunately, it didn't apply this knowledge to the integer divisions of v, which would have allowed it to not generate (substantial) rounding code.
In the second function (shifts), LLVM wasn't required to generate rounding code (as C's >> maps to x86 sar directly), but it also didn't use the knowledge that v would be greater than 0. - Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 18.00.30501 for x64
Visual Studio Express 2013 for Windows Desktop on Windows 7
Command line flags: /O2 (/Os produced different results, but nothing related to rounding)f(): # using divides mov eax, ecx mov ebx, ecx cdq # set edx to 0xffffffff if v negative, 0 otherwise movzx edx, dl # set edx to 0xff if v negative, 0 otherwise add eax, edx # eax = v+255 if v negative, v otherwise sar eax, 8 # eax = v/256 test eax, eax jle SHORT $LN1@f # skip loop if v/256 is less than or equal to 0 mov QWORD PTR [rsp+48], rdi mov edi, eax # edi is loop counter $LL3@f: test ebx, ebx jle SHORT $LN6@f # if v is less than or equal to 0, jump to set eax to 0 mov eax, ebx cdq # set edx to 0xffffffff if v negative, 0 otherwise movzx edx, dx # set edx to 0xffff if v negative, 0 otherwise add eax, edx # eax = v+65535 if v negative, v otherwise sar eax, 16 # eax = v/65536 jmp SHORT $LN7@f $LN6@f: xor eax, eax $LN7@f: mov ecx, eax call b dec rdi jne SHORT $LL3@f mov rdi, QWORD PTR [rsp+48] $LN1@f: f2(): # using shifts mov eax, ecx mov ebx, ecx sar eax, 8 # eax = v>>8 test eax, eax jle SHORT $LN1@f2 # skip loop if v>>8 is less than or equal to 0 mov QWORD PTR [rsp+48], rdi mov edi, eax $LL3@f2: test ebx, ebx jle SHORT $LN6@f2 # if v is less than or equal to 0, jump to set ecx to 0 mov ecx, ebx sar ecx, 16 # ecx = v>>16 jmp SHORT $LN7@f2 $LN6@f2: xor ecx, ecx $LN7@f2: call b dec rdi jne SHORT $LL3@f2 mov rdi, QWORD PTR [rsp+48] $LN1@f2:VS 2013 generates different rounding code for the division, using cdq/movzx (or cdq/and if shifting by something other than 8 or 16 bits).
Also worth noting is that VS 2013 doesn't even bother moving the invariant ternary operator and (v/65536) or (v>>16) out of the loop. Ideally, it could move that calculation out of the loop, or remove the ternary operator completely. Ouch. I have to say, VS 2013 does seem to produce pretty good code overall, but I guess most of ours is heavily in floating point these days. - gcc 4.4.5
Linux x86_64
Command line flags: -O2 -fomit-frame-pointerf(): # using divides testl %edi, %edi movl %edi, %ebp # ebp = edi = v leal 255(%rbp), %r12d # r12d = v+255 cmovns %edi, %r12d # set r12d to v, if v is non-negative (otherwise r12d was v+255) sarl $8, %r12d # r12d = v/256 testl %r12d, %r12d jle .L14 # if r12d is less than or equal to 0, skip movl %edi, %r14d xorl %ebx, %ebx # ebx is loop counter xorl %r13d, %r13d sarl $16, %r14d # r14d = v>>16 .L13: testl %ebp, %ebp movl %r13d, %edi cmovg %r14d, %edi # if v is greater than 0, use v>>16 instead of 0 addl $1, %ebx call b cmpl %r12d, %ebx jl .L13 .L14: f2(): # using shifts movl %edi, %r12d sarl $8, %r12d testl %r12d, %r12d movl %edi, %ebp jle .L6 # skip loop if (v>>8) is less than or equal to 0 movl %edi, %r14d xorl %ebx, %ebx # ebx is loop counter xorl %r13d, %r13d sarl $16, %r14d # r14d = (v>>16) .L5: testl %ebp, %ebp movl %r13d, %edi cmovg %r14d, %edi # if v is greater than 0, use v>>16 instead of 0 addl $1, %ebx call b cmpl %r12d, %ebx jl .L5 .L6:gcc 4.4 does an interesting job, using lea to generate v+255, and then cmovns to replace it with v if v is non-negative. It doesn't bother generating rounding code for v/65536, but it does still generate rounding code for v/256, even though any non-positive result for v/256 is treated the same way throughout. Also, gcc doesn't eliminate the non-varying ternary expression, nor put the constant v/65536 or v>>16 outside of the loop.
I'm not sure what to say here -- modern compilers can generate a lot of really good code, especially looking at floating point and SSE, but this makes me feel as though some of the basics have been neglected. If I were a better programmer I'd go dig into LLVM and GCC and submit patches.
I should have also tested ICC, but I've spent enough time on this, and the only ICC version we use is old enough that I would just regret not using the latest.
For comparison, here is what I would like to see LLVM generate for f():
f(): # using divides cmpl $256, %edi jl LBB0_3 # if v is less than 256, skip loop movl %edi, %ebx movl %edi, %ebp shrl $8, %ebx # ebx = v/256, since v is non-negative shrl $16, %ebp # ebp = v/65536, since v is non-negative LBB0_2: movl %ebp, %edi callq _b decl %ebx jnz LBB0_2 LBB0_3:Performance-wise, I'm sure they wouldn't differ in any meaningful way, but the decrease in size would be nice.
Finally: write for the compiler you have, not the compiler you wish you had. When performance is important, use shifts instead of divides, or use unsigned types (which really should generate the same code for (x/256) vs (x>>8)). Move as much logic out of the loop as you can -- yes, the compiler might be able to do it for you, but why depend on that? But most important of all: test your assumptions.
5 Comments
Music
July 8, 2014
heartburn
July 8, 2014
