Support and General Use > Plugins/Viewers
5.5g poor Mpeg Playback
GodEater:
--- Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 05, 2007, 04:32:06 PM ---Would it help if mpegplayer had an option to reduce the output resolution to something like 160x120, and then just windowbox the output?
--- End quote ---
There isn't a hope in hell that the CPU in the ipod is powerful enough to do this on the fly.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
So just encode all your videos at that resolution.
FujiSkunk:
--- Quote from: BigBambi on November 05, 2007, 05:10:22 PM ---Are you suggesting just playing a section of the video or resizing on the fly?
--- End quote ---
Resizing on the fly.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
I didn't encode this file specifically for Rockbox; it was one from my collection that happened to "just work." 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.
--- Quote from: GodEater on November 06, 2007, 03:06:35 AM ---There isn't a hope in hell that the CPU in the ipod is powerful enough to do this on the fly.
--- End quote ---
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?
AlexP:
--- Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 06, 2007, 10:04:19 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
You already know the CPU isn't powerful enough, seeing as in a previous post you told us your videos were skipping.
--- Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 06, 2007, 10:04:19 AM ---How does the Nano handle 320x240 files? Does it just refuse to play them altogether?
--- End quote ---
I don't know, but I think it just displays the portion that will fit on screen. Thre is no way an iPod can resize on the fly - use that big powerful computer sat on your desk instead!
FujiSkunk:
--- Quote from: BigBambi on November 06, 2007, 10:25:35 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
It's true that resizing would be an extra step, but I was wondering if that could be offset by making displaying be a less CPU-intensive step. Presumably displaying 160x120 video takes less work than displaying 320x240 video, regardless of the source. I'm basing this on my experience with an old PowerMac 7300, which had a 200MHz PPC processor and no dedicated video hardware. The smaller I made the window, the better performance I got.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 06, 2007, 10:04:19 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
You already know the CPU isn't powerful enough, seeing as in a previous post you told us your videos were skipping.
--- End quote ---
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.
GodEater:
--- Quote from: FujiSkunk on November 06, 2007, 11:16:18 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 ?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version