Originally posted by asdx
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Orbital: A New Shell For Wayland's Weston
Collapse
X
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by TheOne View Postmmm, this is disturbing, if this demo was recorded using a native wayland utility and laggued, things are not so superior as they have been sold to us.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheOne View Postmmm, this is disturbing, if this demo was recorded using a native wayland utility and laggued, things are not so superior as they have been sold to us.
Anyway, I've done another one (with no lag this time ): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd1hguj2bPE
Comment
-
Originally posted by giucam View PostScreencasting is a heavy process, whatever the utility you use. You have to ask the graphics card for the framebuffer every frame and dump it to the hdd. Transferring data from the graphics card to the main RAM is slow, and that's because how the PCI-X slot works. Then if the HDD can't keep up it starts dropping frames and you'll get lag in the final video.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TAXI View PostSorry if that question may sound stupid, but couldn't the lag be avoided/minimized with large enough buffers (modern RAM should be able to hold way more than one frame while the HDD is busy) and when using the timestamps (IIRC Wayland timestamps each frame) ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ancurio View PostYou still forgot a) the cost of VRAM->RAM transfers (as was already mentioned) and b) the computational cost of encoding high resolution video in real time.
I also suppose the issues are mostly the same when doing remote display?
Comment
Comment