Database Develop

iPhone 4 now plays 1080p videos easily, then why Galaxy S can't

http://blog.gsmarena.com/iphone-4-now-plays-1080p-videos-easily-does-some-xviddivx-magic-too/
Seems like some people managed to play 1080p on iPhone 4.
SGS has almost the same CPU with better GPU and option for overclock.
What is the reason that is preventing us from playing 1080p? Not good enough app or something else?

1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.

We just seems to be needing a good codec to play 1080p. So it should just be a software limitation unless the GPU is capped at 720p!

ostendk said:
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would never watch 1080p on 4'' screen (even though some people would)
I'm just curios about the hardware.
@Prankey,
I guess SGX 540 can play 1080p if SGX 535 can.

I'll make a wild guess here:
iOS has all the software needed for full hardware acceleration while Android don't.

How is this a development related question?
And I thought galaxy can play 1080 without problems (didnt try though, as its very stupid).

so iPhone display is 960 x 640 pixels?
1080P is 1920 x 1080 pixels
unless it can output HDMI, seems pretty pointless to me.

The screen resolution is 800x480 anyway so the extra resolution does not benefit you at all. It's just a minor convenience to avoid converting the video but you're wasting battery power to decode the video and a lot of space. 720p is enough of a battery and space waster.

mickeko said:
I'll make a wild guess here:
iOS has all the software needed for full hardware acceleration while Android don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
dupel said:
How is this a development related question?
And I thought galaxy can play 1080 without problems (didnt try though, as its very stupid).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess it is a development question, because it may be related with codecs, drivers, etc.
But no, it can't. I have tried it, even though I'm not about to watch full HD on my SGS
miker71 said:
so iPhone display is 960 x 640 pixels?
1080P is 1920 x 1080 pixels
unless it can output HDMI, seems pretty pointless to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We can use microUSB to HDMI and we have DLNA. So it would be useful to us. Anyway, as I've already said my interest is about hardware capabilities not watching full HD on my phone.

Maddmatt said:
The screen resolution is 800x480 anyway so the extra resolution does not benefit you at all. It's just a minor convenience to avoid converting the video but you're wasting battery power to decode the video and a lot of space. 720p is enough of a battery and space waster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You still have to convert the video though for these devices still cause h.264 codec support for mobile devices don't support all of what the codec can do. It's also wasted bit rate as well. It's better to have a lower resolution video with a decent bit rate then it is to have a video with a massive resolution but not enough of a bit rate to smooth out artifacts. this resolution race for videos on mobile phones is a tad stupid.

Rock player plays 1080p for me.
The Video I tried was a bit choppy though but acceptable.
(I guess about 15-18fps). I only tried one Video wich I accidentally loaded on my device.
As far as I now Rock player does not use any GPU acceleration though pretty impressive what this little CPU is capable of.
Definatly plays full hd better then my atom netbook.

ostendk said:
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree it's simply over kill
all the extra processing is wasted on a 4" screen
actually iphone4 is only 3.5" not even 4"
720p is more than enough on the 4"

jam3sjam3s said:
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't talking about hardware accelerated 1080p playback. I was talking about how everything in iOS is adapted to support as much of the hardware features as possible, while Android is not adapted to support the SGS hardware in any other way than Samsung just tossing in (semi)working drivers.

jam3sjam3s said:
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
I guess it is a development question, because it may be related with codecs, drivers, etc.
But no, it can't. I have tried it, even though I'm not about to watch full HD on my SGS
We can use microUSB to HDMI and we have DLNA. So it would be useful to us. Anyway, as I've already said my interest is about hardware capabilities not watching full HD on my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And what format have you tried yo play it in?

jam3sjam3s said:
http://blog.gsmarena.com/iphone-4-now-plays-1080p-videos-easily-does-some-xviddivx-magic-too/
Seems like some people managed to play 1080p on iPhone 4.
SGS has almost the same CPU with better GPU and option for overclock.
What is the reason that is preventing us from playing 1080p? Not good enough app or something else?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1/ there is no point, resolution-wise
2/ with iphone there is a VERY limited range of file formats you CAN actually play, so you will spend half your life converting to a format that apple can control. Most my 1080p movies are mkv format, a format that works on Galaxy S but not on iphone. All my SD movies are Divx and Xvid, again, not compatible with iphone.
Mark.

Well actually we can! Rockplayer can do it so please stop spamming this forum!
You apple fanboy

jodue said:
just ****ing stupid! 1080p on 800x480, wtf? even 720p is higher than the screen-resolution! also a movie in 1080p has ~10Gb which would almost fill my 16gb card. STUPID and completely SENSELESS!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well apparently the people with iphone4 are too rich and too <insert what you think here> to care about that.
they probably think they have super wireless and can stream a 1080p movie and watch it over the air

AllGamer said:
they probably think they have super wireless and can stream a 1080p movie and watch it over the air
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And why not? 802.11n is more than enough for that...

Anything that can be done on the iphone 4 can be done on the galaxy s, just needs the right software to be made.
The only difference between the iphone 4 and the GS is the software, the screen, and the galaxy s having one generation newer gpu
Anyway what's the point in this? sd cards have a 4gb filesize limit, 1080p would waste so much battery for no benefit over a 720p file

technical spec yes
real life usage, not so great
wireless N is what i use for my home teather, yes it "works" but load time is horrible, as well as the random cut offs, then waiting for the load time again.... it's a pain in the aussie
it's much more convenient to first copy the entire movie into the hard drive via wireless N, then watch it
but that defeats the entire purpose of streaming a movie

[Q] 1080p mkv/ts/m2ts refusing to play

so here's my issue. it seems the video player itself has issues displaying 1920x1080 video. 1280x720 works fine, same video. same bitrate, same everything. this seems crocked.
do we know of any workaround for getting a 1080p to work. i've heard of people pulling it off, but i've spent three hours on this and i really believe it to be the player. i've tried third party clients and they're about 5fps. it's irksome.
help plz?

You know we have two different video players right? We have video player, and we also have movie player or something else like that. Try it.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App

What do you expect to get from playing such large videos on the Cappy? I transcode mine to 720X480 in .mkv and they are simply stunning with zero playback issues. The Cappy supports the low end HD resolution of 1280X720, not the Blu-Ray rez of 1920X1080. And it supports that rez in shooting video so that it can be played back on a larger screen. There's no benefit to playing back videos that size on the device. Resize them, you won't notice any difference in picture quality and you'll save a ton of storage space.

I have 315 bluray movies half are 1080p other is 720p so half of my media is watchable on my cappy and my tab. I use Tversity to stream to my ps3 and everything but if there was away to make it only transcode 720p to mobile devices or have a player that will resize it for us that would be awesome.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App

May be more of a codec problem than anything else.
While I never put anything bigger than 720p on my phone (since 1080p has no appreciable visual increase in quality on the phone screen, but a MUCH larger file size), I definitely have played 1080p on my phone before. Hence why I think it may simply be that 1080p MKV w/ certain codecs might not work. Remember that media files *legally* downloaded from the internet will often have slight variations in the parameters used when converting to MKV w/ x264/VC1/etc codec. Hence just because 2 files are "720p x264" in a Matroska container doesn't mean they are actually identically encoded. And the Galaxy S can sometimes be a bit picky about what formats it "automagically" supports and which it doesn't.
And by the way, as you clearly noticed, the "Video Player" app in Android is the only one to use the GPU to accelerate video playback. Other apps might work, but they will run the CPU way harder, and give you worse battery life. Monitoring the "time_in_state" to see what the CPU is running at, I can play 720p x264/MKV files with the CPU at only 400 MHz. Obviously, sometimes the default player won't play what you want, but it's much better to use it if at all possible.

Shammyh said:
And by the way, as you clearly noticed, the "Video Player" app in Android is the only one to use the GPU to accelerate video playback. Other apps might work, but they will run the CPU way harder, and give you worse battery life. Monitoring the "time_in_state" to see what the CPU is running at, I can play 720p x264/MKV files with the CPU at only 400 MHz. Obviously, sometimes the default player won't play what you want, but it's much better to use it if at all possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the main reason I stick with the built-in player. I was on a flight from Ft. Lauderdale to St. Louis to L.A. on Tuesday and I watched 3 movies of close to six hours total length. Landed in L.A. with 31% battery still remaining.

my reasons for wanting to play 1080p is irrelevant to the scenario, i'd just like to see it done.
i considered a codec issue shammy, but i extracted a 60second sample from my crank copy and left it in 1920x1080mkv and tried it. no dice. i handbraked it to 1920x1080mp4 no dice. i once again handbraked it to 1280x720mp4. worked fantastical without any change in any settings except res. hence why i think its a limitation on res rather than codec/bitrate.
i am just IRKED all around at this. time to hit the irc and start screaming at people until somebody gives me an answer huh lmfao

Square peg, round hole. Hope you find a big enough hammer.

cerjam said:
my reasons for wanting to play 1080p is irrelevant to the scenario, i'd just like to see it done.
i considered a codec issue shammy, but i extracted a 60second sample from my crank copy and left it in 1920x1080mkv and tried it. no dice. i handbraked it to 1920x1080mp4 no dice. i once again handbraked it to 1280x720mp4. worked fantastical without any change in any settings except res. hence why i think its a limitation on res rather than codec/bitrate.
i am just IRKED all around at this. time to hit the irc and start screaming at people until somebody gives me an answer huh lmfao
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea man I feel ya, why should you convert your movie to a realistic resolution for a 4" screen when you can ***** at other people to make it work. Doing anything yourself is for chumps.
Sent from my SGH-I897

Its nice to be able to play 1080p why convert all your media when your ps3 and Xbox can play it at that size. Don't wish to lose quality on my other devices
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App

maxjivi05 said:
Its nice to be able to play 1080p why convert all your media when your ps3 and Xbox can play it at that size. Don't wish to lose quality on my other devices
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you lose quality by resizing for the device you'll be playing on? All those extra pixels of HD resolution on a 800X420 screen do not yield better quality, they just require more CPU/GPU to process and more storage space. Nothing is gained by playing HD-sized videos on the Cappy. Absolutely nothing.
I own a small HD video production company in L.A., but don't take my word for it.

I was talking about playing the same media file from my Ps3 on my tv. I'd rather not convert my 1080p files to 720 just for my hand held I'd rather have a better way to do all of it using the files I currently have. Tversity works good but not perfect for over 3G but when I had my iPhone it would play pretty good using airvideo over 3G but there has to be something to make it all work
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App

cerjam said:
my reasons for wanting to play 1080p is irrelevant to the scenario, i'd just like to see it done.
i considered a codec issue shammy, but i extracted a 60second sample from my crank copy and left it in 1920x1080mkv and tried it. no dice. i handbraked it to 1920x1080mp4 no dice. i once again handbraked it to 1280x720mp4. worked fantastical without any change in any settings except res. hence why i think its a limitation on res rather than codec/bitrate.
i am just IRKED all around at this. time to hit the irc and start screaming at people until somebody gives me an answer huh lmfao
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be nice to be able to do this I suppose..but if you don't mind...Why ?
If you play it on any other thing but your phone..you will not really benefit from having it this way..and also..you won't really have enough storage to hold it to be able to watch a full featured film.
Until Samsung gets off their asses and fixes the issue with making the usb-hdmi cable you will never get the output capable of seeing any difference than what you can easily do right now at 720p...If you want to ***** about something...that is what I would ***** about..They had those cables available for 1 month..and not many was ever shipped out to the stores when they introduced the phone...I've e-mailed them every week since October and the only reply is they are working on it...so...I'm not holding my breath on seeing it anytime soon since they are working on the next line of phones already..
Mac

i'll probably get xbanned by the-equinoxe for this post, but it'll be worth it.
Clienterror:
I was doing my best to not "*****" at you "other people". If I wanted to ***** i'd be obviously *****ing, not laughing about it. How about I send you my 12TB of video and you can convert it all into 480p, would that suffice for you? since you have such an issue with what I do with my device and provide absolutely no helpful solution, you do it! I sure hope you have couple dual 12core opterons sitting around, because it's gonna take you awhile. currently, encoding crank.mkv time remaining: 1h5m. now realistically i'd never convert my entire collection, just whatever video I want to watch at the time. but guess what? When i'm leaving or doing something I do not have an hour to wait. It's almost faster to download a 480p copy, you realize that right. converting while dealing with 1080p is not fast, nowhere near it. I find it unlikely you have any experience in the matter, i'm sure i've put more time and effort into this than your useless 30 second out of line response, so "chump" take the attitude and leave my thread please.
Miami_Son:
Time is gained. something new and fun is gained, every dev and intelligent person i've talked to(i'm a regular in the irc, im sure .. i've ran into a few) has tried it. Just because your personal opinion you see no reason or purpose to it, does not mean others see it that way. and not to be an ass here, but I find it surprising anybody who owns a company relating to high definition video would refer to resolution as rez.
Mac11700:
Why? Because I can. Everyone should want to do. You all see me trying to play 1080 on my phone as insane, and to me it's insane for you to NOT want to watch it on your device. I wont have enough space? i've got 32gb in my galaxys, i can fit three 1080ps. I am not stupid, and you all should not assume I am.
it's very irky that you all jump on a question without any real input on the scenario, except for the basic obvious simplest answer which really isnt helpful to the situation rather than putting in some thought and trying to solve the issue.
now: has ANYONE else made any progress with it. any input regarding 1080p on the galaxys could help solve this issue. please and thank you.

alright ive been doing some more fiddling and came up wiht the following results.
using container mkv, and AVC as codec.
i started with 1920x1080 crank 60s sample gone through handbrake reducing it to about 6mb.
1920x1080 through
1282x726 do not play. at all. unknown file.
1280x720 and below play without issue, and play damn well.
the file is exactly the same codec and container, just resized. so i believe it to be an issue with the player.
http://cerjturb.net/u/crank_test_1080p.mkv
does this play on ANYONES device inside video player.

cerjam said:
Miami_Son:
Time is gained. something new and fun is gained, every dev and intelligent person i've talked to(i'm a regular in the irc, im sure .. i've ran into a few) has tried it. Just because your personal opinion you see no reason or purpose to it, does not mean others see it that way. and not to be an ass here, but I find it surprising anybody who owns a company relating to high definition video would refer to resolution as rez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ooh, my internet shorthand has revealed me as a fraud. You got me.
Your insistence on trying to play HD videos larger than what the device is designed for brought to mind a good analogy. You sound like a guy who bought a nice sports car and is appalled at finding out he can't run it in the Indy 500.

cerjam said:
1920x1080 through
1282x726 do not play. at all. unknown file.
1280x720 and below play without issue, and play damn well.
the file is exactly the same codec and container, just resized. so i believe it to be an issue with the player.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could it possibly be that your video is simply beyond what the player and/or the device is designed to handle? Square peg, round hole, I say. 1280x720 is indeed within the scope of the HD specification, so there is no fraud in saying the device can play HD content. It just can't play the high end of the HD spectrum. Live with it or get another device.

He's just trying to find away to not reconvert 3,000 hours of videos... if there was away for the computer to transcode to 720p to the device but leave it 1080p for the ps3 but not make 2 files for one video.... how hard is it to want that??? Tversity works for that but it don't detect the device as a mobile device that wants 720p it either does 1080 or goes way low and looks like crap... we want it to do both 720p for they device Ans 1080p for the ps3 at the same time.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App

maxjivi05 said:
He's just trying to find away to not reconvert 3,000 hours of videos... if there was away for the computer to transcode to 720p to the device but leave it 1080p for the ps3 but not make 2 files for one video.... how hard is it to want that??? Tversity works for that but it don't detect the device as a mobile device that wants 720p it either does 1080 or goes way low and looks like crap... we want it to do both 720p for they device Ans 1080p for the ps3 at the same time.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand that, but it's like complaining that his old tube TV won't display HD signals. Or that his DVD player won't play BD discs. It just wasn't designed to do it. For a device to transcode 1080p to 720p on the fly would require a lot more horsepower than what the Captivate has under the hood. Accept and move on.

First, I understand why you want this; it's a matter of convenience and I don't blame you.
cerjam said:
the file is exactly the same codec and container, just resized. so i believe it to be an issue with the player.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It may be the same codec and container, but what is the bitrate? A lot more data may have to be pumped through the i/o system and larger frames are going to have to be resampled. I'm not saying it is impossible on the hardware, but it might be. I seriously doubt that it's just a matter of some bug, oversight, or intentional disabling of 1080p without good reason.

Can the Nook Color play videos encoded in 1024x600 and 2,000 kbits rate?

Now that I heard you can put Honeycomb 3.0 on the Nook Color, I am thinking of getting it today at B&N.
However, I will be using the device mainly for watching movies and I love to convert movies. I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality.
My question is: Can it play .avi files with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate super smooth on Honeycomb?

Earthbrain said:
Now that I heard you can put Honeycomb 3.0 on the Nook Color, I am thinking of getting it today at B&N.
However, I will be using the device mainly for watching movies and I love to convert movies. I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality.
My question is: Can it play .avi files with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate super smooth on Honeycomb?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looking at the Honeycomb thread:
Doesn't work:
-Sound (sadly! Despite my efforts the last hours I didn't get it working properly yet)
-DSP e.g. no hardware video decoding
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So that would seem to be a significant barrier to your plan ;-)!
In the basic 2.1, the recommendation is for MP4 (H.264) at 1,100 kbps. I recently watched Inception at that setting and it was perfect for the Nook Color.
Check out this thread regarding Handbrake settings for the Nook Color: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894165

for any kind of hi-res content, you'll want to use hardware accelerated playback. Unfortunately, the chip in the nook only supports a certain video codec and resolution. h.264 basic profile and a max of 800x480. 1100 kbps looks pretty good.
Any other codec or higher resolution will rely on the software renderer, and it will be very choppy.
I created a nook color preset for handbrake you might find helpful. It will convert your 720p movies to the highest quality the nook supports.

saeba said:
Check out this thread regarding Handbrake settings for the Nook Color: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894165
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You added the link to my thread while I was replying to this one.

MattZTexasu said:
You added the link to my thread while I was replying to this one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I went back and looked up your thread since I successfully used your presets and wanted to say thanks. They worked great and the results made a long flight from Denver to Orlando very enjoyable !

MattZTexasu said:
for any kind of hi-res content, you'll want to use hardware accelerated playback. Unfortunately, the chip in the nook only supports a certain video codec and resolution. h.264 basic profile and a max of 800x480. 1100 kbps looks pretty good.
Any other codec or higher resolution will rely on the software renderer, and it will be very choppy.
I created a nook color preset for handbrake you might find helpful. It will convert your 720p movies to the highest quality the nook supports.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You guys just burst my bubble. If the max resolution that it can play is only 800x480, then I guess I will not be buying the Nook Color. Even my HD2 can play mpg4 file that is encoded in 800x480 with 2,000 kbps smooth as butter without problem. If the NC cannot play 1024x600 with 2,000 kbps, then what is the use?
I guess I will have to wait for the Xoom to come out.

800x480 looks great. The nook scales it up to 1024x600, and the pixel density is high enough that you see no pixels. It looks very smooth.

You do realize that the hd2 has a 1ghz snapdragon processor. While we only have an 800mhz stock that can be overclocked to something equivalent. Why would you expect it to do better than the hd2? I would say they would be the same. But if the difference is worth the extra $350 premium then go for it. 854x480 at 1100kbps looks amazing on the nook.

The biggest dissapointment with my Nook is the video playback. Its not horrendous on eclair, but I have absolutely no luck with it on these froyo builds. Probably going to go back to 2.1 soon just so I can at least view some videos again.

tangomonky said:
The biggest dissapointment with my Nook is the video playback. Its not horrendous on eclair, but I have absolutely no luck with it on these froyo builds. Probably going to go back to 2.1 soon just so I can at least view some videos again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no hardware video decoding on Froyo yet.

Mikroft said:
You do realize that the hd2 has a 1ghz snapdragon processor. While we only have an 800mhz stock that can be overclocked to something equivalent. Why would you expect it to do better than the hd2? I would say they would be the same. But if the difference is worth the extra $350 premium then go for it. 854x480 at 1100kbps looks amazing on the nook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never thought of owning the Nook Color until I heard about being able to put Honeycomb on it. I prematurely got excited and thought that it can do good video playback since my HD2 is excellent at playing 800x480 file at 2,000 kbps encoding. I knew that it can be overclocked to become more powerful. If it can only do 854x480 at 1100 kbps then it is a big disappointment. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If 854x480 at 1100 kbps looks good to you, it may not look good to me because of possible pixelation. I want a device that can play full screen resolution with high bit rate. I know that it would require bigger memory card/bigger storage space and slightly consume more power but that is what I am willing to sacrifice.
Well, I guess I have to get either the Xoom or the G-Slate. I don't mind paying extra for it. Just put in some extra work time and I will get a device that I will be happy with.
I love gadgets and love to tinker with them and that is why I enjoy putting all kinds of available OS onto my HD2. I was just about buy the NC just to tinker with it but I guess I will wait until the great people at XDA can somehow get hardware video acceleration on the NC to be able to play videos at higher settings.
Thanks for all the info about the nook's video capability. It was very informative.

DSP support?
What are the chance the DSP will get supported in Froyo/Honeycomb?
So even with hardware acceleration we only get [email protected]
Mike

Video quality
Any idea if this would work better if the nook was oc'd to 1.1, I guess once the dsp is fixed maybe that and a 1.1 cpu will work.

While i do lov to play 720p videos on my captivate (its screens is 800x480) it is down scaling those videos... the main reason i do 720p is because thats what tubemate will let me download them as and still work..
That being said he 480p that the NC can so is still a very good picture.. Normal CTR TV's are only 480i dvd's are at 480p and they still look good on my 42" 1080p tv.. not as good as blu-ray but still good.. and thats stretched to 42" were talking about 7"
1080p 42in= 52.45 DPI
1680x1050 20in monitor= 99.06 DPI
NC running 800x480 at 7inch= 133.28 DPI
NC running 1024x600 at 7inch= 169.55 DPI
Now.. looking at those numbers.. so you REALLY need to run at 1024x600? even at the 800x480 your getting less pixelation then you do on a 42inch 1080p tv.. yes the NC is held ALOT closer.. but even so.. its still giving you DVD quiality picture in your hand on a 7inch screen..

The video playback is definitely disappointing. It sucks not being able to just download a video and just watch it.

I'm getting a bit lost from the conflicting opinions. I'm a lazy and VERY not fussy video viewer. My main use of my NC is to watch videos that were originally made for an iPhone.
Bottom line... Now that sound is working in honeycomb to the NC. am I going to be able to watch my simple iphone type videos on my NC if I take it up to honeycomb? Remember. I'm not at all fussy about quality as long as it isn't too terribly jerky.
Sent from my LogicPD Zoom2 using XDA App

rpharvey said:
I'm getting a bit lost from the conflicting opinions. I'm a lazy and VERY not fussy video viewer. My main use of my NC is to watch videos that were originally made for an iPhone.
Bottom line... Now that sound is working in honeycomb to the NC. am I going to be able to watch my simple iphone type videos on my NC if I take it up to honeycomb? Remember. I'm not at all fussy about quality as long as it isn't too terribly jerky.
Sent from my LogicPD Zoom2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i understand (and thats not much =) currently honeycomb still has NO hardware acceleration for video.. nither does froyo so the best video playing on a NC you can get is currently running a rooted stock rom.. encoded at 800x480 or below.. the iphone 3gs and older all have a screen size of 480x320 so they SHOULD work as long as they were encoded properly (right codec and such)

Although I understand the excitement, this seems like a very premature discussion. Despite the repeated statement that honeycomb is available on the NC, out is in fact not. What you are seeing is actually an SDK build. Software Developers Kit. For development. And the first SDK at that. You are essentially seeing an emulator running on the nook screen.
Before everyone goes nuts I know that is not technically correct, but it is as correct as saying we are running full honeycomb.
After an AOSP build is released we will see a more functional version and eventually probably see better integration with the video hardware. And for my final rain on this parade...I am a professional video content creator. And if you think you are able to see the difference between DVD quality and 2100 stream HD on a 4.3 inch screen, you are mistaken. Or have vision above that of mortal men.
For the record I owned an HD2, now use the Evo and also own a NookColor.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

ministersin said:
...I am a professional video content creator. And if you think you are able to see the difference between DVD quality and 2100 stream HD on a 4.3 inch screen, you are mistaken. Or have vision above that of mortal men.
For the record I owned an HD2, now use the Evo and also own a NookColor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok i'm confused by this part...
No one was really talking about the 4.3 inch screen..
ANYWAYS the dvd quality vs 2100 stream HD by that do you mean a 2100/kbps steam?
if thats the case then its not a surprise seeing as 2100/kbps is enough to stream at 480p.... which is dvd quality

Darkomen64 said:
Ok i'm confused by this part...
No one was really talking about the 4.3 inch screen..
ANYWAYS the dvd quality vs 2100 stream HD by that do you mean a 2100/kbps steam?
if thats the case then its not a surprise seeing as 2100/kbps is enough to stream at 480p.... which is dvd quality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OP's original question was about "I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality."
Later after some responses he comments he gets better resolution on his HD2 (that is a 4.3" screen) so he will skip the nook.
You still point out a misunderstanding I had now that I go back which is that he is starting with a 720p source but ending up 1024x600. But really this is just makes my point stronger because then we are looking at an even smaller difference in the resolution.

Will cheap laptop be powerful enough to tabcast video?

I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?

AleT said:
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?

bhiga said:
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.

AleT said:
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see. Then you might be okay, though it's always nice to have more "headroom."
Definitely make sure you have 4 GB or more RAM and of course 64-bit Windows, rather than 32-bit.
Best if the hardware can provide hardware acceleration for Flash as well.

I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.

Raw GHz isn't really the best measure of performance anyway. The i5 notebook will definitely be good enough for 480p, not sure about HD. Also Windows 8.1 supports wireless screen sharing so if you can find an affordable receiver you'd get smoother results that way.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

DJames1 said:
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The stuttering with Tab Casting has more to do with the method they are using to stream as it does the power of the machine doing the streaming...
Tab Casting is (I Think it is anyway) using an M-JPEG to stream to the CCast...
Which is just what it sounds like sending JPG frames in series like it's some sort of Webcam.

exotic resolutions (21:9, 4K, 2560x1080 aso.) on chromecast?

Does Chromecast support exotic resolutions like the 2560x1080p for 21:9 screens or 4K? Which HDMI-Version is used in Chromecast?

paradonym said:
Does Chromecast support exotic resolutions like the 2560x1080p for 21:9 screens or 4K? Which HDMI-Version is used in Chromecast?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With a rooted Chromecast it should be possible when someone optimizes the resolution selection during HDMI handshake - how well it would work with casting is a another question. (I intend to try this as I'm running the Chromecast on a 1366x768 display).

While it could probably display at those resolutions there is no way the WiFi could handle those streams to make it work.

The maker of the SoC is known, there should be technical specs on their site. I think the SoC is several years old and was developed as a FullHD multimedia device, and nothing more.

paradonym said:
Does Chromecast support exotic resolutions like the 2560x1080p for 21:9 screens or 4K? Which HDMI-Version is used in Chromecast?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty sure it's HDMI 1.3 or 1.4
4K won't happen unless it's at 30p (which is poopy)
But mostly it's designed for standard televisions, so I doubt there is any testing or attention given to resolutions that aren't 4:3 or 16:9 720p or 1080p Heck, given the number of times support for 720p devices has been broken, I don't think they test on anything other than Full HD 1080p.
lecorbusier said:
The maker of the SoC is known, there should be technical specs on their site. I think the SoC is several years old and was developed as a FullHD multimedia device, and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I once went looking and couldn't find any specs published. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
It's a Marvell Armada 1500-mini

bhiga said:
I once went looking and couldn't find any specs published. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
It's a Marvell Armada 1500-mini
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently it displays everything at 1080P being it's highest Res, But can display 4K content as they have software that renders 4K content @ 1080P.
So it can play the content but it downconverts it to 1080P for display.
http://www.marvell.com/digital-entertainment/armada-1500/qdeo/

Okay, there's not much in terms of numerical specs to see in the product brief. The upper limit is the HDMI 1.4 spec, but below that, who knows?
Apart from limiting fps, you could use interlacing, or omit sync signals usually needed by crts only. This was necessary to display 1080p, 1200p and 1600*1200 via single link DVI, upon which HDMI is based. But probably the HDMI's link speed is higher, so you could go beyond DVI limits.

How could you connect chromecast to 1366x768 resolution monitor?

roneymathew32 said:
How could you connect chromecast to 1366x768 resolution monitor?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on the monitor. Chromecast sends out a video signal on HDMI, not a computer signal, so unless the monitor accepts 1280x720 or 1920x1080 it probably won't work and you'll need a device to convert it. You could use a HDfury Nano GX or similar, but that would cost more than the Chromecast itself and closer to a new 1080p monitor.
If it's a 1366x768 projector or one of the early 720p televisions, or the display has native HDMI and supports HDCP 1.x, then it might stand a chance of working, but in general, unless that monitor is really special, it's probably not worth the trouble to try to make it work. If you already have a Chromecast you can try it though, it won't hurt anything.

Could you please answer which HDMI version Chromecast Ultra has? I have not found any information that there is exactly HDMI 2.0. And 4K 30 FPS is supported with HDMI 1.4.

Lucky_spirit said:
Could you please answer which HDMI version Chromecast Ultra has? I have not found any information that there is exactly HDMI 2.0. And 4K 30 FPS is supported with HDMI 1.4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This forum is Chromecast 2012, the original model.
It's HDMI 1.x and not HDMI 2.0, supports only up to 1920x1080 resolution.
You might try asking in Google Chromecast (2015) - maybe someone there knows, but generally speaking non-standard resolutions are not of interest to mass-consumer devices - dealing with them requires more than just supporting the actual output resolution/rate, but involves have the applications handle the scaling for different aspect ratios as well, which is extra programming for little/no reward, not to mention extra testing/QA.