<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Learning Free Quartz Composer on Mac: Follow my Class Notes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://createdigitalmotion.com/2006/09/02/learning-free-quartz-composer-on-mac-follow-my-class-notes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://createdigitalmotion.com/2006/09/02/learning-free-quartz-composer-on-mac-follow-my-class-notes/</link>
	<description>Motion graphics, live visuals, VJing, video production, and interactive art</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Kirn</title>
		<link>http://createdigitalmotion.com/2006/09/02/learning-free-quartz-composer-on-mac-follow-my-class-notes/#comment-415</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Kirn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2006 23:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://createdigitalmotion.com/2006/09/02/learning-free-quartz-composer-on-mac-follow-my-class-notes/#comment-415</guid>
		<description>It's like Jitter in that there's a patching interface and you connect objects via virtual patch cables to assemble modular processing of visuals. Processing is similar in that they both can render in OpenGL 3D, but otherwise is largely a different animal as it relies upon Java and uses coding (no graphical UI).

I'm actually thinking of doing a very un-scientific comparison of those products. But if you're interested in processing live video images and high-performance 2d graphics filtering, as well as doing basic animation of 2d images in 3d space, it has a lot of appeal. Processing and Jitter are both far broader in capabilities, and more easily extensible (at least through official routes) but it depends on what you're doing. More soon!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s like Jitter in that there&#8217;s a patching interface and you connect objects via virtual patch cables to assemble modular processing of visuals. Processing is similar in that they both can render in OpenGL 3D, but otherwise is largely a different animal as it relies upon Java and uses coding (no graphical UI).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m actually thinking of doing a very un-scientific comparison of those products. But if you&#8217;re interested in processing live video images and high-performance 2d graphics filtering, as well as doing basic animation of 2d images in 3d space, it has a lot of appeal. Processing and Jitter are both far broader in capabilities, and more easily extensible (at least through official routes) but it depends on what you&#8217;re doing. More soon!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://createdigitalmotion.com/2006/09/02/learning-free-quartz-composer-on-mac-follow-my-class-notes/#comment-412</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://createdigitalmotion.com/2006/09/02/learning-free-quartz-composer-on-mac-follow-my-class-notes/#comment-412</guid>
		<description>Very cool!  Thanks.  

I have been trying to pick a complex, open ended application to learn.  Is this anything like Jitter?  Processing??  I hope so as it's free.  Eager to see what tutorials, etc you have coming!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very cool!  Thanks.  </p>
<p>I have been trying to pick a complex, open ended application to learn.  Is this anything like Jitter?  Processing??  I hope so as it&#8217;s free.  Eager to see what tutorials, etc you have coming!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
