Rockbox Ports are now being developed for various digital audio players!
For the record, the CPU in the Nano and the Video is identical - the difference is in the screen resolution. It's much lower on the Nano, and so the processor has to do less work.
Would it help if mpegplayer had an option to reduce the output resolution to something like 160x120, and then just windowbox the output?
I have a 80GB 5.5G Video, and while 320x240 video playback gets lots of frame-skipping, I have a 160x120 file that plays just fine.
Are you suggesting just playing a section of the video or resizing on the fly?
If you are going to do that, since you have to encode for rockbox anyway, why not just encode at a smaller resolution on the first place?
There isn't a hope in hell that the CPU in the ipod is powerful enough to do this on the fly.
I figured that if the CPU were able to play other MPG files at a lower resolution (and GodEater is saying it can't, so this may be moot), then you wouldn't have to do as many re-encodings just to get something to play.
So the CPU isn't even powerful enough to decode 320x240 in realtime? If that's true, then yeah, resizing the output won't help.
How does the Nano handle 320x240 files? Does it just refuse to play them altogether?
It is perfectly capable of playing files of lower resolution, as it doesn't resize them, they just don't fill the screen. In fact it plays them better as it is easier to decode the files and update the screen. What we cannot do is resize the videos. In order to do that we would need processor power to decode the video, then more processor power to resize it, then processor power to update the screen. You are just adding an extra step of processor intensive calculation, thereby making the performance much worse than if we didn't resize.
Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 06, 2007, 10:04:19 AMSo the CPU isn't even powerful enough to decode 320x240 in realtime? If that's true, then yeah, resizing the output won't help.You already know the CPU isn't powerful enough, seeing as in a previous post you told us your videos were skipping.
I know that the CPU isn't powerful enough for decode+display, yes. I was asking if it is powerful enough for decode without display. If it isn't, and I now gather it isn't, then I agree resizing won't help.
Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 06, 2007, 11:16:18 AMI know that the CPU isn't powerful enough for decode+display, yes. I was asking if it is powerful enough for decode without display. If it isn't, and I now gather it isn't, then I agree resizing won't help.What would be the point of decoding a video only to then not display it ? I'm not sure I see what you want to achieve here ?
Decoding the video isn't the hard bit - resizing it is. That is orders of magnitude more work than decoding or displaying. The iPod is not up to it.
But personally I don't think it's worth the time and effort to implement it - you will get much better results by re-encoding the video, rather than wasting CPU cycles (and battery) decoding files larger than you're displaying.
Page created in 0.061 seconds with 21 queries.