As a Myth user, I can say I am happy to finally ear some devs trying to reach XBMC. That UI is so nice and flexible, while MythUI is clearly (visually) outdated and unanimated. But MythTV is just the best when it come to feature with 1 thousand mile lead on XMBC (1000computer years = a decade in normal users life). I do use Xv, but I will upgrade my hardware just to get XBMC like UI with Myth.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
MythTV Developers Plan Xv, XvMC, OpenGL Changes
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gbee View PostOn the contrary, we welcome users using their existing hardware with their existing versions of MythTV. You will be able to use MythTV 0.24 for as long as you want.
Again, I understand your point an in the end its a question of manpower if you want to support many versions. If you don't have the people to do it, then you can't do it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phoronix View PostPhoronix: MythTV Developers Plan Xv, XvMC, OpenGL Changes
While the MythTV developers didn't comment on what video API they will be targeting for the Intel/ATI support, it's safe to assume it will be VA-API.
VAAPI is still a moving target in almost every respect and I've yet to see a stable implementation (I have tested the VAAPI implementations on other linux players and was never satisfied - so not just a MythTV issue)
Ok, another option would be AMD implementing VDPAU but I think it's much more likely to see a Gallium port to C64 GEOS...
Comment
-
Originally posted by dargllun View PostVAAPI is an API Which they apparently don't like (for good reasons):
Ok, another option would be AMD implementing VDPAU but I think it's much more likely to see a Gallium port to C64 GEOS...
Comment
-
Originally posted by gbeauche View PostYour link doesn't list any good reason.
If your assessment is different - fair enough. Speaking as who you are, would it then make serious sense for me to install Catalyst, your vaapi->vdpau bridge and be happy?
Comment
-
Is the fancy OSD really good enough reason to drop several generations of hardware?
Even on R700 hw, XV is an improvement over GL output. And the difference grows for every generation you go towards the older end.
Where, at the end, you have Trident, Matrox and Mach64 cards that play silky smooth on XV but GL is measured in frames per minute.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dargllun View PostI quoted what I understood was the good reason - VAAPI is considered unstable in terms of its definition as well as its rendering stability.
If your assessment is different - fair enough. Speaking as who you are, would it then make serious sense for me to install Catalyst, your vaapi->vdpau bridge and be happy?
Comment
-
How long would it take to create a wrapper from vaapi to vdpau? You did it once in the other way, so it would be cool to have the other side especially for the new flash player - h264 l5.1 support is not needed as in most cases only l4.0 is used - like youtube. I think you can specify another vdpau driver with an enviroment var, so basically it should be possible...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostHow long would it take to create a wrapper from vaapi to vdpau? You did it once in the other way, so it would be cool to have the other side especially for the new flash player
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elv13 View PostThat UI is so nice and flexible, while MythUI is clearly (visually) outdated and unanimated.
Originally posted by curagaIs the fancy OSD really good enough reason to drop several generations of hardware?
These screenshots might help to illustrate just one of the reasons we don't like X-Video:
First the OSD on a standard definition recording with VDPAU - http://miffteevee.co.uk/imagebin/osd_font_vdpau.png
Now that same OSD with the same recording using XVideo - http://miffteevee.co.uk/imagebin/osd_font_xv2.png
The above is a generous example, full resolution PAL, the lower the original video resolution the poorer the quality of the OSD so it's worse with NTSC/SD-ATSC and completely useless with videos/recordings below those resolutions. Also worth noting is that the OSD will match the video dimensions with Xv, so a 4:3 SD recording on a 16:9 screen the OSD will be squashed horizontally, vertically for a 2.35:1 film on the same screen and you can imagine how 2.35:1 on a 4:3 screen might be unusable.
We know not everyone cares about a better looking and more capable user interface. It's been made quite clear to us that it's what most users want. To be brutally honest it's also what interests the developers, which is usually a significant factor in a volunteer run project.
I'll finish by repeating that this is a long way off in the future. There is every reason to believe that drivers for existing ATi and Intel hardware will have much improved 2D OpenGL support by that time. Hardware has been capable of it for years, were we not playing 3D computer games using OpenGL ten years ago?
Comment
Comment