[MPlayer-users] Playing QHD (3840x2160) material with mplayer
phil_rhodes at rocketmail.com
Thu Apr 17 01:07:27 CEST 2008
So what format is this video in?
If it's an AVI or something, that shouldn't really
present a problem - it's just a big disk array, or, if
it's short, a lot of RAM.
I'm not aware there's a provision that any playback
software should intrinsically be able to figure out
that media size is less than available RAM and
therefore cache the whole thing. There are many
situations where that wouldn't be desired behaviour -
although I'd have hoped you could cause it to be done
by offering mplayer the right settings.
--- "Dean S. Messing" <deanm at sharplabs.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2008, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > You could try using -vo gl:yuv=X with various X
> values or -vo xvidix (see
> > man mplayer), but there are other limiting factors
> as well.
> On 11 Apr 2008, Reimar Doeffinger wrote:
> > At this resolution, I think at best some really
> new cards will be able
> > to handle it via -vo gl, probably only -vo gl2
> will work. And it
> > certainly should not be that much faster that x11.
> I finally got a few minutes to try both of your
> None come close to playing QHD at 24 fps. There were
> speed differences between -vo gl:yuv=X for X==0
> compared to the
> other values (which were all faster) but all are
> that -vo x11.
> I am baffled by two things:
> 1) As mplayer sucks the video off of disk the
> first time around
> I would expect to see the glrellm memory meter
> (Fedora 6) increase,
> but I don't. Once the disk activity drops to
> zero mplayer speeds up
> form 2 or 3 fps to ~14, so it is clearly
> playing from memory.
> The meter shows that I'm using maybe 15% of
> the memory before
> calling mplayer. The clip is 2.4GB long and i
> have 4GB of memory
> so the meter should move. But it doesn't.
> 2) It turns out I _can_ play a few frames at 24
> fps or faster
> using `animate' from ImageMagick. The problem
> is that ImageMagick
> is a memory pig: a single QHD frame is 24.8MB
> but it eats more
> than 5 times that amount w/in ImageMagick.
> Nonetheless, it would seem that since it is
> able to ship the pixels
> to the display panel, the system is
> fundamentally capable of it.
> I wrote down the system specs in a previous message
> in this thread:
> Thanks again for any help you provide!
> MPlayer-users mailing list
> MPlayer-users at mplayerhq.hu
More information about the MPlayer-users