From: Steve S. <st...@ma...> - 2001-06-20 21:14:31
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Matthias Dahl wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 07:38:35AM +0300, Steve Stavropoulos wrote: > > > I just let xine be (almost) the only proccess running. > Well on a 400 Mhz machine that's not that surprising. When you watch a DVD > you should try to get as much resources as you can get and stop those CPU > intensive background tasks... :-( > > But that isn't a problem with XINE itself. Give it a try on Windoze and > you will see there is not much you can do besides running a DVD player if > you want to a have smooth playback. On the other hand - why would you want > to? You are watching a good movie so? :-) I tried to play a dvd movie in windows and I got the same (good) results that I have on Linux. I hope Linux (xine) will get better than windows.(in terms of speed first of all) (example of superiority at video playback: DivX movies, I can't play most of them in win with a decent performance, at Linux MPlayer doesn't have the slightest problem (xine is performing good too)) > > > note: my working X setup is 1600x1200@32bit > Here we have the first problem. Running XINE in 32bit color depth isn't > such a good idea if you want as much frames as possible. And I don't know > about the screen size - maybe that's a bit too much also. But I am not > sure about that one... anyone here knows more about this? > > (Just wanna mention: it's not XINE that slows down in 32bpp - it is your > graphics card and X itself.) I can confirm that and that is why I switched to 16bit and a lower resolution for watching a DVD. I noticed that when I play a movie with xine in 1600x1200@32bit I have some frames skipped (20-50, depends on the movie) but if a switch to a console (ex. ctrl-alt-f1) I have 0 frames dropped. So it must be my card and X that have the problem (that doesn't mean that if wine could be faster wouldn't help the situation). Also if I start another X server at 16bit and low resolution I can't get a performance gain. Does that mean my card has run out of resources for driving the 2 X servers? The only solution is to have one X server at low depth and resolution. > > > syncfb doesn't work well, i think Xv is MUCH better (correct me if I'm > > wrong). > As far as I can tell I have a much better quality with the SyncFB plugin > than with the Xv protocol. Also the plugin synchronizes with the refresh > rate of your monitor. Well... just take a look at the README.syncfb there > you will find all details you need. :-) I have read the docs :) The problem with syncfb is that it can't do fullscreen at a high resolution (1024x768 or more) and the quality of the picture I get isn't good either way. If I use the modelines for driving X at 50Hz there is more flicer on the screen than I can stand. With Xv everything works fine and the output quality is excellent! |