The issue of video decoding is to some extent a niche within DirectFB. For video decoding, DirectFB uses VideoProviders (and ImageProviders for still images). These are interfaces that read data from a source, decode it, and render it (usually to a hardware layer). The VideoProvider is a black box to DirectFB - and for any given new platform, or new media format, you have to write one. From the DirectFB viewpoint this is straightforward: all you have to do is implement the required VideoProvider interface to your own code - and the VideoProvider interface is quite simple. From the hardware viewpoint of course you must implement the actual video decoding, and you may use the hardware acceleration or not according to your own choice.
So you have to invest in writing the implementation of the VideoProvider (or wrapping an existing decoder in the required DirectFB interface), but then you benefit from the main features of DirectFB (provided those are supported on your platform..). Chris ================================== Chris Bore Training Director BORES Signal Processing ch...@bores.com www.bores.com +44 (0)1483 740138 ________________________________ From: David Henderson <dhender...@digital-pipe.com> To: Georgios Tsalikis <aliver...@tsalikis.net> Cc: directfb-users@directfb.org Sent: Tue, 21 December, 2010 22:05:34 Subject: Re: [directfb-users] DirectFB Questions Georgios Tsalikis wrote: > > > On 12/21/2010 07:24 PM, David Henderson wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I'm working on a lightweight project that might end up using DirectFB, but I >>have a couple of questions that need answering by the pro's here first. :) >>Also, >>I'm in the process of learning some aspects so forgive any illogical or >>newbie >>questions. > I am not a pro but i am interested in using DFB in a custom distro, too. (i >guess that's what you have in mind. >> >> 1) I can see DirectFB is used to replace X11. In doing so, are the drivers >> for >>graphics cards still needed or are they avoided by writing directly to the >>frame >>buffer? If drivers are still required, is there a database somewhere that has >>them for download? > Devs avoid, so far, to claim that DFB is a replacement for X, but i agree > with >you. Graphics drivers are needed for writing to the FB in an accelerated way. >Here is a database for the little range of drivers for desktop systems: > http://www.directfb.org/index.php?path=Support/Graphics >> 2) The project's hardware will be working with an Intel motherboard using >>Intel's GMA X4500HD video chipset. It's supposed to have all kinds of goodies >>for hardware decoding of videos. Are there any compile options, patches, or >>additional software that can work with DirectFB to utilize all that this >>chipset >>has to offer? > AFAIK no... >> 3) I see that DirectFB has the option of adding OpenGL which is supposed to >>offload graphics processing to the GPU correct? What about vdpau or is that >>just >>for mplayer (or other media playing programs)? > DirectFBGL is practically a concept project that works with Matrox cards, > only. >It needs Mesa embedded drivers of a branch that doesn't exist anymore. >> >> 4) What are my options for a Window Manager with DirectFB? I looked over the >>website, but I can't really tell. Apparently SaWMaN is one, but the >>associated >>pictures don't show any "windows", title bars, etc. Is it possible to use >>XDirectFB with an existing embedded WM? Following the XDirectFB link on the >>website shows a picture of a Gnome Desktop. Is this Gnome running on DirectFB >>or >>am I mistaken? Also, why do some of the Windows in that graphic look like >>they're using two different WM's? > As far as i understand, SawMan is intented for embedded systems. Yes, that >picture shows Gnome running over XDirectFB. The different window style is >because some windows are in X driven WM while others are using DirectFB's >simple >WM with the LiTE toolkit engine. >> >> 5) Do I need to enable anything in the Kernel to make DirectFB work? > A Linux Fusion patch is a way of letting DirectFB applications talk to each >other, or allow multiple DFB apps work simultaneously under something that >could >be defined as a single desktop. > >> Looks like that's all for now. Thanks for any help you guys can provide. >> >> Dave > > Wait for news about DirectFB 2.0. I sense it will solve lots of problems for >people like us. > > George > > _______________________________________________ Thanks for the reply George. The requirements I have for the OS are to use as much hardware as possible to free the CPU for other tasks and to be able to play media via OpenGL, vdpau, and/or other accelerators. Seems that DirectFB can't currently satisfy either of those tasks. Does anyone know of any plans to make a driver for Intel's GMA X4500HD video chipset? Looking at the website for version 2 of DFB seems to show that it's still in the design stage which means I'd have to wait for a while before moving forward with the project. I might have to go with TinyX instead. Can anyone else add anything that would make it worth using DirectFB instead of TinyX? Thanks, Dave _______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list directfb-users@directfb.org http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
_______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list directfb-users@directfb.org http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
