Talk:Video Player - Revision history

Mateo at 01:52, 10 November 2007

2007-11-10T01:52:15Z

Mateo at 01:50, 10 November 2007

2007-11-10T01:50:40Z

Zash at 13:42, 9 November 2007

2007-11-09T13:42:44Z

Zash at 13:42, 9 November 2007

2007-11-09T13:42:03Z

Techiem2 at 16:37, 23 September 2007

2007-09-23T16:37:48Z

NsN at 20:02, 11 July 2007

2007-07-11T20:02:36Z

Machee at 14:34, 9 May 2007

2007-05-09T14:34:57Z

Mjr: .mkv taken

2007-04-18T23:54:22Z

.mkv taken

Serhei: Proposal for .mkv file extension.

2007-02-26T02:58:07Z

Proposal for .mkv file extension.

New page

I think the Neo has potential as a video player even with the weak CPU it has right now (that's one of the things I do with my Palm TX). Come on, is anyone going to care if a 2.8" screen is displaying 240x320 or 480x640 video? You can't see a thing anyway ;-)

That said, the chief issue is making sure that the video is transcoded (scaled and pre-rotated) in advance, just as you outline. This *could* be done as a batch job invoked on the phone, or handled by whatever desktop app handles communication with the Moko. There is going to be some sort of app or function that does this transcoding.

Anyhow, I propose that a file extension be created (.mkv, for Moko Video), which is simply MPEG-1 at 240x320 or some resolution like that. This renaming would be done by whatever app did the transformation, and it becomes much easier to explain to grandma why her movie is running at 10fps.

Even if the movie player turns out crappy, you can still watch Charlie Chaplin vids at a resolution of 150x200 without panic.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 I think the Neo has potential as a video player even with the weak CPU it has right now (that's one of the things I do with my Palm TX). Come on, is anyone going to care if a 2.8" screen is displaying 240x320 or 480x640 video? You can't see a thing anyway ;-)
-That said, th--[[User:Mateo|Mateo]] 02:50, 10 November 2007 (CET)e chief issue is making sure that the video is transcoded (scaled and pre-rotated) in advance, just as you outline. This *could* be done as a batch job invoked on the phone, or handled by whatever desktop app handles communication with the Moko. There is going to be some sort of app or function that does this transcoding.
+That said, the chief issue is making sure that the video is transcoded (scaled and pre-rotated) in advance, just as you outline. This *could* be done as a batch job invoked on the phone, or handled by whatever desktop app handles communication with the Moko. There is going to be some sort of app or function that does this transcoding.
 Anyhow, I propose that a file extension be created (.mkv, for Moko Video), which is simply MPEG-1 at 240x320 or some resolution like that. This renaming would be done by whatever app did the transformation, and it becomes much easier to explain to grandma why her movie is running at 10fps. (.mkv is taken by Matroska Video, but some custom extension [omv?] may be a good way to emphasize the Moko-spesificness of a clip --[[User:Mjr|Mjr]] 01:54, 19 April 2007 (CEST))

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 I think the Neo has potential as a video player even with the weak CPU it has right now (that's one of the things I do with my Palm TX). Come on, is anyone going to care if a 2.8" screen is displaying 240x320 or 480x640 video? You can't see a thing anyway ;-)
-That said, the chief issue is making sure that the video is transcoded (scaled and pre-rotated) in advance, just as you outline. This *could* be done as a batch job invoked on the phone, or handled by whatever desktop app handles communication with the Moko. There is going to be some sort of app or function that does this transcoding.
+That said, th--[[User:Mateo|Mateo]] 02:50, 10 November 2007 (CET)e chief issue is making sure that the video is transcoded (scaled and pre-rotated) in advance, just as you outline. This *could* be done as a batch job invoked on the phone, or handled by whatever desktop app handles communication with the Moko. There is going to be some sort of app or function that does this transcoding.
 Anyhow, I propose that a file extension be created (.mkv, for Moko Video), which is simply MPEG-1 at 240x320 or some resolution like that. This renaming would be done by whatever app did the transformation, and it becomes much easier to explain to grandma why her movie is running at 10fps. (.mkv is taken by Matroska Video, but some custom extension [omv?] may be a good way to emphasize the Moko-spesificness of a clip --[[User:Mjr|Mjr]] 01:54, 19 April 2007 (CEST))
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Why rotate? Is xrandr adding much load or is it supposed to output to fb? --[[User:Zash|Zash]] 14:42, 9 November 2007 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 9 November 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Would it be easier to simply play a decently sized (i.e. whatever the cpu could handle easily) video in the default screen orientation with no stretching, just with the classic black bar borders(or at least a stretch/no stretch option?)? -- [[User:Techiem2\|Techiem2]]		Would it be easier to simply play a decently sized (i.e. whatever the cpu could handle easily) video in the default screen orientation with no stretching, just with the classic black bar borders(or at least a stretch/no stretch option?)? -- [[User:Techiem2\|Techiem2]]

−	Why rotate? Is xrandr adding ~~mutch~~ load or is it ~~suposed~~ to output to fb? --[[User:Zash\|Zash]] 14:42, 9 November 2007 (CET)	+	Why rotate? Is xrandr adding much load or is it supposed to output to fb? --[[User:Zash\|Zash]] 14:42, 9 November 2007 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 9 November 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Would it be easier to simply play a decently sized (i.e. whatever the cpu could handle easily) video in the default screen orientation with no stretching, just with the classic black bar borders(or at least a stretch/no stretch option?)? -- [[User:Techiem2\|Techiem2]]		Would it be easier to simply play a decently sized (i.e. whatever the cpu could handle easily) video in the default screen orientation with no stretching, just with the classic black bar borders(or at least a stretch/no stretch option?)? -- [[User:Techiem2\|Techiem2]]
		+
		+	Why rotate? Is xrandr adding mutch load or is it suposed to output to fb? --[[User:Zash\|Zash]] 14:42, 9 November 2007 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 23 September 2007
Line 12:		Line 12:
	I would say that even video at 640x480@25 might be possible if it is in a pre converted format. The ipodlinux.org project has managed to play 220x176@18fps on one 80mhz ARM core while running linux. This is using a new format which doesn't compress as well as mpeg2. However rockbox.org has managed to play mpeg2 video at reasonable speed utilizing both cores of the ipod.		I would say that even video at 640x480@25 might be possible if it is in a pre converted format. The ipodlinux.org project has managed to play 220x176@18fps on one 80mhz ARM core while running linux. This is using a new format which doesn't compress as well as mpeg2. However rockbox.org has managed to play mpeg2 video at reasonable speed utilizing both cores of the ipod.
	If you have to preconvert the video anyways, you could either pre-rotate it or even convert it into a different video format. Alternatively if you don't port an existing player, but implement a new one the rotation could also be done while decoding. [[User:NsN\|NsN]] 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)		If you have to preconvert the video anyways, you could either pre-rotate it or even convert it into a different video format. Alternatively if you don't port an existing player, but implement a new one the rotation could also be done while decoding. [[User:NsN\|NsN]] 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	I checked the information for the video capabilities of the [http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/PluginMpegplayer Rockbox mpegplayer plugin] in relation to my iAudio X5 (since that's what I have).
		+
		+	The X5 is running a Motorola SCF5250 (120Mhz) and supports playing video at 160x128 (the full screen res on the device) at 18 fps - which seems to work fine the time or two I've tested it.
		+
		+	The question I would have relating to the Neo1973 is, why does the video need to be rotated (or stretched)?
		+
		+	Would it be easier to simply play a decently sized (i.e. whatever the cpu could handle easily) video in the default screen orientation with no stretching, just with the classic black bar borders(or at least a stretch/no stretch option?)? -- [[User:Techiem2\|Techiem2]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 11 July 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Couldn't the video files be encoded in a way that may increase the filesize significantly, but would require less CPU processing for 480x640 playback? I'm not extremely familiar but video encoding but it seems to me that this is a possible solution. -- [[User:machee\|machee]] 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)		Couldn't the video files be encoded in a way that may increase the filesize significantly, but would require less CPU processing for 480x640 playback? I'm not extremely familiar but video encoding but it seems to me that this is a possible solution. -- [[User:machee\|machee]] 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	I would say that even video at 640x480@25 might be possible if it is in a pre converted format. The ipodlinux.org project has managed to play 220x176@18fps on one 80mhz ARM core while running linux. This is using a new format which doesn't compress as well as mpeg2. However rockbox.org has managed to play mpeg2 video at reasonable speed utilizing both cores of the ipod.
		+	If you have to preconvert the video anyways, you could either pre-rotate it or even convert it into a different video format. Alternatively if you don't port an existing player, but implement a new one the rotation could also be done while decoding. [[User:NsN\|NsN]] 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, 9 May 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Even if the movie player turns out crappy, you can still watch Charlie Chaplin vids at a resolution of 150x200 without panic.		Even if the movie player turns out crappy, you can still watch Charlie Chaplin vids at a resolution of 150x200 without panic.
		+
		+	Couldn't the video files be encoded in a way that may increase the filesize significantly, but would require less CPU processing for 480x640 playback? I'm not extremely familiar but video encoding but it seems to me that this is a possible solution. -- [[User:machee\|machee]] 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)