Hi all, The VeMP announcement reminded me it was probably time to post another XxMC patch against current CVS. As before: ./configure --enable-xxmc Usage: mplayer -vo xvmc -vc ffmpeg12mc No significant changes... since noone reported any problems. Was waiting to implement mpeg4, but took longer than expected to get any hardware. Regards, -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it/goog - MSN Search unbiased?
On Monday 07 Feb 2005 21:06, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
Hi all,
The VeMP announcement reminded me it was probably time to post another XxMC patch against current CVS.
As before: ./configure --enable-xxmc Usage: mplayer -vo xvmc -vc ffmpeg12mc
No significant changes... since noone reported any problems. Was waiting to implement mpeg4, but took longer than expected to get any hardware.
Regards,
What's the opinion on the unichrome/epia support for MPlayer? Is this suitable for consideration for MPlayer CVS yet or does the patch need to be reworked? ... In fact... is anyone actually interested in this??? Cheers, -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it/goog - MSN Search unbiased?
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:46:31 +0000 Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
What's the opinion on the unichrome/epia support for MPlayer? Is this suitable for consideration for MPlayer CVS yet or does the patch need to be reworked?
personally id rather go for libddmpeg since that drops the X dependency. as a sidenote it was totally reversed and released as gpl code in case you worry about licensing. regards reza jelveh
Reza Jelveh writes:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:46:31 +0000 Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
What's the opinion on the unichrome/epia support for MPlayer? Is this suitable for consideration for MPlayer CVS yet or does the patch need to be reworked?
personally id rather go for libddmpeg since that drops the X dependency. as a sidenote it was totally reversed and released as gpl code in case you worry about licensing.
What do you mean by "reversed" here? Reverse engineered? Diego
Hi,
Reza Jelveh writes:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:46:31 +0000 Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
What's the opinion on the unichrome/epia support for MPlayer? Is this suitable for consideration for MPlayer CVS yet or does the patch need to be reworked?
personally id rather go for libddmpeg since that drops the X dependency. as a sidenote it was totally reversed and released as gpl code in case you worry about licensing.
What do you mean by "reversed" here? Reverse engineered?
yes A'rpi / MPlayer, Astral & ESP-team -- Girls are like internet domain names, the ones I like are already taken.
On Saturday 12 Feb 2005 20:21, Arpi wrote:
Hi,
Reza Jelveh writes:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:46:31 +0000
Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
What's the opinion on the unichrome/epia support for MPlayer? Is this suitable for consideration for MPlayer CVS yet or does the patch need to be reworked?
personally id rather go for libddmpeg since that drops the X dependency. as a sidenote it was totally reversed and released as gpl code in case you worry about licensing.
What do you mean by "reversed" here? Reverse engineered?
yes
Sigh. Yes the origial VIA libddmpeg was reverse engineered. I was the person who reverse engineered it. VIA then went ahead and released a new version with a new interface which completely broke backwards compatibility.... Therefore the open source unichrome driver implementation has implemented acceleration as an extension of XvMC instead. This is what Mythtv takes advantage of - libddmpeg support was dropped some time ago. Similarly latest xine takes advantage of the XvMC driver. As for dropping the X dependency. All the code for the unichrome mpeg acceleration is open and available. It's not going to be impossible to produce non-X implementation it just requires someone who's interested in that to get involved. Regards, -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it/goog - MSN Search unbiased?
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:56:36 +0000 Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
Sigh. Yes the origial VIA libddmpeg was reverse engineered. I was the person who reverse engineered it.
right sorry about that. but can you please tell me what the advantage of the new unichrome xxmc over libddmpeg is? except that it still almost cleanly commits :) regards reza jelveh
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 15:05, Reza Jelveh wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:56:36 +0000
Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
Sigh. Yes the origial VIA libddmpeg was reverse engineered. I was the person who reverse engineered it.
right sorry about that.
S'ok.
but can you please tell me what the advantage of the new unichrome xxmc over libddmpeg is? except that it still almost cleanly commits :)
1. It's easier to implement if someones already implemented XvMC support, for example, so adding support to existing applications is less of a learning curve. 2. The driver is actively developed and improved by the community. 3. It's not necessary to run applications as root as required by the VIA libddmpeg driver. -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it/goog - MSN Search unbiased?
Hi,
2. The driver is actively developed and improved by the community.
how? is it opensource?? A'rpi / MPlayer, Astral & ESP-team -- Girls are like internet domain names, the ones I like are already taken.
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 17:19, Arpi wrote:
Hi,
2. The driver is actively developed and improved by the community.
how? is it opensource??
The current unichrome driver is yes :- http://unichrome.sourceforge.net Cheers, -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it/goog - MSN Search unbiased?
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:47:42 +0000 Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
1. It's easier to implement if someones already implemented XvMC support, for example, so adding support to existing applications is less of a learning curve.
mmkay
2. The driver is actively developed and improved by the community.
that's nice i guess
3. It's not necessary to run applications as root as required by the VIA libddmpeg driver.
well Xorg binary is +s :D then i guess if theres nothing else wrong with the mplayer-pre5 unichrome patch it could get commited. regards, reza jelveh
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 20:58, Reza Jelveh wrote:
then i guess if theres nothing else wrong with the mplayer-pre5 unichrome patch it could get commited.
Or even the mplayer-CVS patch at the start of this thread? ! :-) -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it/goog - MSN Search unbiased?
On Monday 14 Feb 2005 05:28, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 20:58, Reza Jelveh wrote:
then i guess if theres nothing else wrong with the mplayer-pre5 unichrome patch it could get commited.
Or even the mplayer-CVS patch at the start of this thread? ! :-)
OK so this thread died again with no conclusion... does anyone have any strong opinions on including the unichrome support in MPlayer either for or against? or is there simply no interest in ? Cheers, -- Ivor http://www.ivor.it
Hi Ivor, Ivor Hewitt wrote ( On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:29:13PM +0000 ):
On Monday 14 Feb 2005 05:28, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 20:58, Reza Jelveh wrote:
then i guess if theres nothing else wrong with the mplayer-pre5 unichrome patch it could get commited.
Or even the mplayer-CVS patch at the start of this thread? ! :-)
OK so this thread died again with no conclusion... does anyone have any strong opinions on including the unichrome support in MPlayer either for or against? or is there simply no interest in ?
I personally don't have this hardware, but i think support for it would be a good thing. So maybe just be a bit more patient, I know you already waited a long time... I'll try to have a look at your patch as soon as i get the time. Alex (beastd)
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:29:13PM +0000, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
On Monday 14 Feb 2005 05:28, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 20:58, Reza Jelveh wrote:
then i guess if theres nothing else wrong with the mplayer-pre5 unichrome patch it could get commited.
Or even the mplayer-CVS patch at the start of this thread? ! :-)
OK so this thread died again with no conclusion... does anyone have any strong opinions on including the unichrome support in MPlayer either for or against? or is there simply no interest in ?
I am also interested in it but do not want to compile X or install GenToo? Is there a way to test it "quickly". Does the GenToo LiveCD include the patches needed? Yours, Michael
Michael Behrisch wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:29:13PM +0000, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
On Monday 14 Feb 2005 05:28, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
On Sunday 13 Feb 2005 20:58, Reza Jelveh wrote:
then i guess if theres nothing else wrong with the mplayer-pre5 unichrome patch it could get commited.
Or even the mplayer-CVS patch at the start of this thread? ! :-)
OK so this thread died again with no conclusion... does anyone have any strong opinions on including the unichrome support in MPlayer either for or against? or is there simply no interest in ?
I am also interested in it but do not want to compile X or install GenToo? Is there a way to test it "quickly".
You need a working modern unichrome driver and an up-to-date DRM. What are you running? Check out the unichrome.sf.net mailing list for details.
Does the GenToo LiveCD include the patches needed?
I have no idea what a gentoo liveCD contains. If it's got a recent enough Xorg release and a recent enough drm package then perhaps. -- Ivor
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:29:13 +0000 Ivor Hewitt <ivor@ivor.org> wrote:
OK so this thread died again with no conclusion... does anyone have any strong opinions on including the unichrome support in MPlayer either for or against? or is there simply no interest in ?
personally i think it should be applied and i don't know what the reason against it was. maybe iive knows. regards reza
participants (6)
-
Alexander Strasser -
Arpi -
Diego Biurrun -
Ivor Hewitt -
Michael Behrisch -
Reza Jelveh