Hi,
I'm trying to load a video in full HD 1920 X 1080 with [pix_film] to texture a rectangle.
Quicktime movie .mov
Size 1920 X 1080
I reduced its format size to HD 1280 X 720 and now [pix_film] is able to open it but reproduction is slow and choppy.
I use [pix_film] to load Quicktime (.mov) DV 780 X 420 videos and they run perfectly.The same setup won't work with 1920 X 1080.
I work on OS X 10.9.1 and Pd-Ext 0.43.4 extended.
How can I load videos in full HD 1920 x 1080 in order to texture effectively?
M
What codec, it does a big difference on CPU usage. I use mjpeg with
good result.
Pat (from the future)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2014? 03? 14? 17:06, puredata@11h11.com wrote:
What codec, it does a big difference on CPU usage. I use mjpeg with good result.
Also, the choice of codec would be a different one depending on what you are going to do. If you are aiming to JUMP to specific frames in the video or play it backwards you would choose a different codec than if you just want to play it from the beginning to the end linearly.
m.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Max abonnements@revolwear.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Also, the choice of codec would be a different one depending on what you are going to do. If you are aiming to JUMP to specific frames in the video or play it backwards you would choose a different codec than if you just want to play it from the beginning to the end linearly.
Could you give some examples? I don't know anything about this but would really like to. Could you explain why is it like this?
m.
Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
If you are aiming to JUMP to specific frames in
the video or play it backwards you would choose a different codec than if you just want to play it from the beginning to the end linearly.
Could you give some examples? I don't know anything about this but would really like to. Could you explain why is it like this?
This is because with some codecs, to save storage space/bandwidth, movies are made of a few full images (key frames), and partial images that hold only the difference with respect to the previous keyframe. Say there is 1 full frame for 24 partial frame.
So if you jump to a partial frame, the computer has to seek to a keyframe and then to the diff frame, and rebuild the complete image from that.
mjpeg is just more or less a series of JPEG images in a queue. So when you seek to frame x, there is less work to do. The downside is that files are very large.
If you just read a movie linearly, you're good with keyframes and so. If you want to jump all over the file like crazy, it could be more efficient with mjpeg.
I want to play from start to finish.
I have in my Final Cut Pro the choice of producing a file with the following codecs
Quicktime movie Format Size 1980 X 1080 MPEG4 Format Size 1980 X 1080 H.264 for apple devices Format size 1280 X 720 (.m4v)
What codec works best with format size 1920 X1080? One of these or is there another one more suitable.
[pix_film] was able to open the .m4v (H.264 for apple devices Format size 1280 X 720) but when the video plays it stutters.
What causes this? The codec or [pix_film] or my cpu's capacity?
I'm running a mac pro with 2 x 2,8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon and 6GB of RAM.
M
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Charles Goyard cg@fsck.fr wrote:
Alexandros Drymonitis wrote:
If you are aiming to JUMP to specific frames in
the video or play it backwards you would choose a different codec than if you just want to play it from the beginning to the end linearly.
Could you give some examples? I don't know anything about this but would really like to. Could you explain why is it like this?
This is because with some codecs, to save storage space/bandwidth, movies are made of a few full images (key frames), and partial images that hold only the difference with respect to the previous keyframe. Say there is 1 full frame for 24 partial frame.
So if you jump to a partial frame, the computer has to seek to a keyframe and then to the diff frame, and rebuild the complete image from that.
mjpeg is just more or less a series of JPEG images in a queue. So when you seek to frame x, there is less work to do. The downside is that files are very large.
If you just read a movie linearly, you're good with keyframes and so. If you want to jump all over the file like crazy, it could be more efficient with mjpeg.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Alexandros Drymonitis -
Charles Goyard -
Mateo De Los Ríos -
Max -
puredata＠11h11.com