22/07/2010, 10:41 PM
23/07/2010, 01:16 AM
Assassinator Wrote: [ -> ]Ticking the GPU Acceleration box in VLC made my whole goddamn computer blue screen. Most likely VLC's fault though.[/list]
LOL. VLC sucks hard.
Mickey Wrote: [ -> ]Why not allow videos to be longer than 10 minutes rather than this retareded spoon :/
Ah, you can only upload vids longer than 10 minutes if you're a partner >> http://www.youtube.com/partners
That's it. YouTube sucks hard too. (Last night I was ragequitting all youtube videos because they didn't fudgeing buffer properly - the higher the definition the better the buffer. Retarded, I know)
23/07/2010, 01:24 AM
Senseito7 Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. VLC sucks hard.
At least they fixed their H.264 demuxer lately. That was like one of my biggest issues with VLC. You seek, and the whole screen screws up into little multicolored blocks.
But yeah, always liked MPC better, more reliable, less buggy. VLC portable is good for taking to school and other places though (otherwise you're stuck with the default XP WMP install, and next to no codecs).
23/07/2010, 01:54 AM
Assassinator Wrote: [ -> ]For some unknown reason, this was actually surprisingly easy to play back. Only used like 35-50% of CPU usage on my quad, which means any decent dual core should also be able to do it.Some guy said that it wouldn't run smoothly on his C2D E6600 CPU. Possibly decoder, but just giving a general idea on the information I'm basing off.
Mickey Wrote: [ -> ]Why not allow videos to be longer than 10 minutes rather than this retareded spoon :/I think there's like a maximum length if you don't want to pay certain licensing fees. For H.264, it's cut at around 10 minutes.
Not like Google was short on cash though - in fact, it would probably be a better use of money than wasting it on computing resources to encode 4k resolutions...
23/07/2010, 02:33 AM
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]Assassinator Wrote: [ -> ]For some unknown reason, this was actually surprisingly easy to play back. Only used like 35-50% of CPU usage on my quad, which means any decent dual core should also be able to do it.Some guy said that it wouldn't run smoothly on his C2D E6600 CPU. Possibly decoder, but just giving a general idea on the information I'm basing off.
Well, E6600 is pretty weak, it's a first generation C2D running @2.4GHz. That won't even me equal to 1/2 my processor.
I'm using ffmpeg-mt, which is most likely quite a bit better than Flash, especially when there's recent been a significant amount of speed optimizations for it (or so heard).
23/07/2010, 02:40 AM
Assassinator Wrote: [ -> ]It's pretty much half of a Q6600. From your CPU usage, it's not exceeding 50%, so probably not using more than 2 cores anyway.ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]Assassinator Wrote: [ -> ]For some unknown reason, this was actually surprisingly easy to play back. Only used like 35-50% of CPU usage on my quad, which means any decent dual core should also be able to do it.Some guy said that it wouldn't run smoothly on his C2D E6600 CPU. Possibly decoder, but just giving a general idea on the information I'm basing off.
Well, E6600 is pretty weak, it's a first generation C2D running @2.4GHz. That won't even me equal to 1/2 my processor.
23/07/2010, 03:20 AM
Why: because wee can...
probably not very effective but if it's possible why not XD
As far as flash handling multiple cores...
http://Slushnet.dyndns.org
TheS is a 120 fps flash application that uses mathematics to render 3D points into a 2d image.
I've noticed the different speeds on different machines I have tested it on... so one must assume that available cpu and ram affect flash, rendering speed and the like.
I have never tried encoding anything though
probably not very effective but if it's possible why not XD
As far as flash handling multiple cores...
http://Slushnet.dyndns.org
TheS is a 120 fps flash application that uses mathematics to render 3D points into a 2d image.
I've noticed the different speeds on different machines I have tested it on... so one must assume that available cpu and ram affect flash, rendering speed and the like.
I have never tried encoding anything though
23/07/2010, 05:35 AM
Assassinator Wrote: [ -> ]But yeah, always liked MPC better, more reliable, less buggy. VLC portable is good for taking to school and other places though (otherwise you're stuck with the default XP WMP install, and next to no codecs).
You can make MPC-HC rather portable. You probably know the latest builds only seem to be available at http://x264.nl , get that one.
Run it, in Player, Other tick "Store settings to INI file".
Remove any External Filters, in Internal Filters tick all available.
Close the player, open the .INI, in it, paste without quotes "RememberPlaylistItems=0", save it.
Delete the third file that MPC-HC produces as a result of RememberPlaylistItems, it won't be created again.
Throw the exe and ini onto your drive.
I've only briefly played around with it. Its internal codecs are based on FFmpeg (same as VLC?) and I haven't tried it with MKVs.
Oh, the only flaw is that it apparently still leaves an entry in the Registry but nothing important.
23/07/2010, 05:52 AM
Senseito7 Wrote: [ -> ]You can make MPC-HC rather portable. You probably know the latest builds only seem to be available at http://x264.nl , get that one.Actually, latest (SVN) builds, get them from here: http://www.xvidvideo.ru/media-player-cla...ma-x86-x64 (Russian + English site, don't get freaked out by the former)
SourceForge build is r1249.
23/07/2010, 05:56 AM
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: [ -> ]Senseito7 Wrote: [ -> ]You can make MPC-HC rather portable. You probably know the latest builds only seem to be available at http://x264.nl , get that one.Actually, latest (SVN) builds, get them from here: http://www.xvidvideo.ru/media-player-cla...ma-x86-x64 (Russian + English site, don't get freaked out by the former)
SourceForge build is r1249.
the one on x264 is 1301. Custom build?