On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:28 +0100, Mark Adams wrote: > Did more with vdr though: I am now convinced that it isn't > dropping > frames, as such, but playing them back at about half speed. > > OK, here's a theory then: since you said that this changed when you > applied my patch to DirectFB, is it possible that vdr is deinterlacing > and attempting to show 50 frames per second? With my patch to > DirectFB, you need to supply 25 interlaced frames a second. Do you > have any deinterlacing options to experiment with? If so, turn them > all off.
I'm not sure whether your patches caused this or not: I had applied your 720x576NoScale patch to viafb before testing it properly this time around. Before applying your patch to DirectFB, I was putting down the jerky picture to the amount of CPU that was being used and didn't really study it properly, although I'm pretty sure it looked similar to what it does now, albeit with dodgy colours. I will try to test with a vanilla viafb module and DirectFB tonight. As to how softdevice is doing deinterlacing, there are several options such as lavc, ffmpeg, etc. but I have it turned off. I'm not totally clear how this is meant to work; I'll have to ask on the softdevice list. Is this how it should work: The application (softdevice plugin here) be passing full interlaced frames to directfb at 25 frames per second. Directfb separates the fields and sends them in turn (hopefully correctly synced to the correct field lines) to the TV encoder at 50 fields per second. Without your patches, I presume directfb just receives and sends the frames at 25 frames per second. Am I anywhere near? Cheers, Laz _______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
