video performances

kersh · Nov 11, 2008

Video benchmarks on coreplayer 1.25, default options.

Video 1 - Simpsons chapter
Video: XVID 512x384 25.00fps 756Kbps [Video 0]
Audio: MPEG Audio Layer 3 48000Hz stereo 131Kbps [Audio 1]
Average speed: 93%

Video 2 - Friends chapter
Video: XVID 512x384 23.98fps 845Kbps [Video 0]
Audio: MPEG Audio Layer 3 48000Hz stereo 130Kbps [Audio 1]
Average speed: 99%

Video 3 - Futurama chapter
Video: DivX 5 640x480 25.00fps 2097Kbps [Video 0]
Audio: MPEG Audio Layer 3 48000Hz stereo 120Kbps [Audio 1]
Average speed: 73%

Video 4 - Heroes.S03E08.HDTV.XviD-LOL 400mb
Video: XVID 624x352 23.98fps 1147Kbps [Video 0]
Audio: MPEG Audio Layer 3 48000Hz stereo 122Kbps [Audio 1]
Average speed: 90.11%

Video 5 - Californication.S02E07.HDTV.XviD-0TV 250mb
Video: XVID 624x352 23.98fps 1082Kbps [Video 0]
Audio: MPEG Audio Layer 3 48000Hz stereo 128Kbps [Audio 1]
Average speed: 95.57%

Video 6 - Simpsons chapter

Video: DivX 5 720x576 25.00fps 1111Kbps [Video 0]
Audio: MPEG Audio Layer 3 48000Hz stereo 128Kbps [Audio 1]

Average speed: 58%

Videos of the test: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2M95ZHD4

No 100% on ANY video, but close. Acceptable? Maybe in coreplayer 1.3.

For me, this is a total crap and a big failure of HTC again. BUY THE STUPID ATI DRIVERS F**K, ILL PAY 50$ FOR THEM

born_2_code · Nov 11, 2008

disappointment

Yes, I second that,

The poor video performance is a big downer and a very noticable thing watching your favourite smallville episode skipping frames all the time.

kersh · Nov 11, 2008

and the game of the ball is sloooooow and like playing a 10fps game.

Boinng · Nov 11, 2008

I have to say I'm amazed by this. I remember when the whole Tytn II video debacle broke, we had these silly statements from HTC trying to justify the poor performance by saying it was a business phone, and didn't have video acceleration built in (which was a lie), but that future HTC devices might be "multimedia-centric" or words to that effect... well, surely the Touch HD is exactly such a multimedia device, advertised and sold as just that, so why are we still discussing lacklustre performance?

Is this gross stupidity or carelessness on the part of HTC, or is there something seriously wrong with these Qualcomm chips?

Let's just revisit the blurb on HTC's own website for a moment (before they start rewording it, as they did with the Tytn II) -

HTC said:
Enjoy music videos, films and streaming like you never thought possible on a mobile device. Experience internet browsing so exhilarating... it feels like you never left your laptop at home...

...3.8-inch wide, WVGA (480 X 800 pixel) display offering a cinema experience on the go

Hmm.

Rob_Quads · Nov 11, 2008

I find this quite dissapointing. I was hoping that due to the large screen they would have made sure it can play basic video files. Those sorts of file are exactly what i would be looking to play on it too.

Hmm The more I read the more i am sawying towards an iPhone which i fine frustrating

Wishmaster89 · Nov 11, 2008

Guys try playing those files in WMP and you will see that it will play them perfectly thanks to the hardware acceleration which unfortunately still isn't fully used in CP! Wait till CC will crack the software part of the HW acceleration and you then you will be able to watch all those movies without demuxing on Touch HD.

To those who want to know how to make .mp4 from .avi/.mkv without converting PM and I will tell how to do it in 10 minutes and not 1 hour.

kersh · Nov 11, 2008

How we can play this files on a program that doesnt read that codecs?

Wishmaster89 · Nov 11, 2008

xvid/divx are all the same it is simply mpeg4 video. If you take it out of the .avi file and mux it into .mp4 it will be recognised as mpeg4 video file. Its the same with h264/x264 if you take it out from .avi and mux it into .mp4 it will be recognised as h264 video unfortunately wmp only supports baseline profile which is rarely used at all.
Remember that .avi/.mp4/.mkv are all containers that can contain the same type of video or audio stream only .mkv is special cause it can easily contain subtitles stream of different format and almost every audio format which unfortunately isn't the case with .avi and .mp4 that is why .mkv is the most popular container for all those HD rips cause you can put almost every kind of thing.

kersh · Nov 11, 2008

update !

Mark One · Nov 11, 2008

I hear the sound of a deal breaking....while this is a disappointment for sure the real crunch for me would be if the video suffered in ordinary performance as my polaris did (eg low screen rewrites pretty obvious in TT7).

Lucas0511 · Nov 11, 2008

I am not into benchmarks, just one of those "business users" that likes to have some multimedia on my device. Just watching ep 7 of se 4 of The Unit on Coreplayer 1.2.5 in fullscreen landscape from Divx 624x352, and find it plays really well, with no lag or performance problems. So for the occasional user like me the HD is doing just fine.

kersh · Nov 11, 2008

Wishmaster89 said:
xvid/divx are all the same it is simply mpeg4 video. If you take it out of the .avi file and mux it into .mp4 it will be recognised as mpeg4 video file. Its the same with h264/x264 if you take it out from .avi and mux it into .mp4 it will be recognised as h264 video unfortunately wmp only supports baseline profile which is rarely used at all.
Remember that .avi/.mp4/.mkv are all containers that can contain the same type of video or audio stream only .mkv is special cause it can easily contain subtitles stream of different format and almost every audio format which unfortunately isn't the case with .avi and .mp4 that is why .mkv is the most popular container for all those HD rips cause you can put almost every kind of thing.

what???

xvid and divx are codecs, not simply videos, if you mux a xvid/divx video in one container, it will be a mpeg4 container with xvid/divx video, and windows media player will not play it until you convert the video to another codec with loss of quality, bigger size and loss of time, so is not that easy and for us, say that "use windows media player" is a useless comment.

kersh · Nov 11, 2008

I uploaded the videos with that I made the benchmarks

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=2M95ZHD4

lmbranco · Nov 11, 2008

Just tried Heroes Episode 8 on my i780, and here are the results:

GDI - 181,36%
Raw Framebuffer - 206,13%
Intel xScale - 213,59%
Direct Draw - 182,2%

However taking into account the difference in resolution from the older models and the Touch HD i think this could justify the difference in performance.
Also, maybe Core Player is not using effectively the architecture of the Touch HD.

But... this is a new machine and as such it should be ready to play acceptably the videos.

freexdalogin · Nov 11, 2008

On the Omnia I can play a 700 MB AVI file almost perfectly smoothly without any conversion at all. I can simple place the original high-quality video AVI onto the Omnia and play it.

Is this the same case for the Touch HD? Can you do the same thing and it will play (even if you need to use WMP)? Or do you have to convert it down to a lower quality first like on previous phones?

lmbranco · Nov 11, 2008

The Omnia included by default a DivX player, this is not the case of the Blackstone, however with Core Player or the free TCMP you can watch virtually any movie without converting it.

Boinng · Nov 11, 2008

The Omnia is also based around a different processor, not made by Qualcomm. I suspect that helps as well.

mkMoSs · Nov 11, 2008

this is so disappointing...
my only wish is that CorePlayer 1.2.5 actually doesn't use the hardware acceleration of the touch hd as it should.

because if this is the actual performance of the hardware then, at least me, i wont spent 700 euro on this device which promises to be multimedia device but actually isn't.

can someone convert a file that is playable with the built-in video player or WMP but this file should be of relatively high resolution say 720x400 (wmv, mp4 whatever) and then see how's the performance?

maybe this is just a coreplayer poor performance issue here are we're just blaming the device for nothing...

ps. I had the omnia for couple of weeks, the video performance of IntelXScale is absolutely amazing even on high resolution videos, also I don't think the 240x400 resolution of the omnia plays a big factor here, i suppose that even if the omnia had 480x800 resolution, the performance would be the same (maybe bit slower, but definitely more than 100%)

Eraser85 · Nov 11, 2008

Hi, I've just tryied this video: http://downloads.gamezone.com/demos/d24115.htm which is infact an 800x480 wmv file. Coreplayer 1.2.5 benchmarked at 46% with QTv, even less with other methods. Windows Media Player however managed to play it much much better, even if with some dropped frames.. definitely not a smooth playback but at least was not a slideshow like in CorePlayer...

downloading a 640x480 wmv video.. I'll report back with results..
Edit: the second video is this one: http://www.casadolcecasa.com/gallery/video/Natale2004_hig.wmv
WMP: watchable, first part kinda sluggish, then goes better (supposedly because most of the img is dark -> easier to decode)
CP1.2.5: unwatchable, frames slideshow.. 56% with QTv

L0ser · Nov 11, 2008

mkMoSs said:
ps. I had the omnia for couple of weeks, the video performance of IntelXScale is absolutely amazing even on high resolution videos, also I don't think the 240x400 resolution of the omnia plays a big factor here, i suppose that even if the omnia had 480x800 resolution, the performance would be the same (maybe bit slower, but definitely more than 100%)

and on what facts do you base this opinion? nobody know how fast it would play. the HD resolution has to display 4 times more pixel than the omnia

video performances

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Similar threads