chenyunecjtu / coreavc-for-linux

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/coreavc-for-linux
GNU General Public License v2.0
0 stars 1 forks source link

CoreAVC is much slower than ffmpeg on my system #15

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?

 I'm running mplayer patched according to the instuctions.  Everything 
works, but much slower than the regular ffh264 codec. The only suspicious 
output is the following line:
...
[PP] Using codec's postprocessing, max q = 4.
...

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

 Expected some speedup. With ffmpeg I'm able to play most, but not all 
720p files. With -vc coreavc13 any 720p is very choppy. 

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

 mplayer dev-SVN-r24974-4.1.2 (tried older versions with same result)
 CoreAVC (tried both 1.3 and 1.5)
 Pentium 4 3.0GHz CPU
 Ubuntu 6.10, kernel 2.6.20.1-custom

Please provide any additional information below.

 Is CoreAVC supposed to work faster in such configuration?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by ose...@gmail.com on 12 Nov 2007 at 11:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I have the same problem, chunky playback with CoreAVC vs. libavcodec. Using the
latest mplayer trunk, tested with both CoreAVC 1.3 and 1.1. I have the same
postprocessor line, tried forcing -pp 0, but it's still using 4. Using same
colorspace and scaling as with libavcodec, only it seems to output many "pts 
value <=
previous" lines during playback. Tried -correct-pts with no result either.

Original comment by ginsulic...@gmail.com on 10 Mar 2008 at 8:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
the pts value <= previous issue is being worked on (see bug #10)
to work around it use
-no-correct-pts
which should give you much better performance.

Original comment by alannis...@gmail.com on 7 May 2008 at 4:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
so i have to recant that last statement as it didn't actually help my problem at
all...but for the record still, the parameter is -nocorrect-pts

Original comment by TheShado...@gmail.com on 23 May 2010 at 10:18