I openend with the help of google translator google a new thread. i know online translator not translate everything correctly. Please do not laugh. My English is far too weak, so google Translator


I have in another forum regarding my problems with my notebook and vsl depicted. I know Tobi. I would first like to say that tobi is not a dj. He has nothing to test the software, He works a lot with videos. He has agreed to help me. That is our attitude

A-cut:
I use the m1330 in club. I would like to hang with videos. When videos on the proposed software loaded my cpu running at 75-90%.
Maybe I can load with its faster cpu reduce?

Tobi:
A faster CPU always helps.
How does because your 'planned software "? Does the videos? Which video codecs? Because video codecs can be configured for a (postprocessing), on the other hand, they can be exchanged against those with less CPU load.

A-cut:
The software is called live video serato scratch.
The videos have the h264 codec and mp4 container at a bit rate of 3000 kbps and 25 sec frame. Would penryn on my m1330 board fit?

Tobi:

Now, it's interesting!
I maintain you can almost H.264 at 3000kbps with 0% CPU load play! The GeForce 8400M can thanks VP2 engine in hardware:
Www.anandtech.com
Www.anandtech.com

Problem is: How?
In principle, have a current ForceWare drivers to install and then you still CyberLink PowerDVD Ultra> = 7.3. Only there is a H.264 codec with it, the acceleration of the video 8400M uses.
If you get the CyberLink not come off, it would be the 2 Tip www.coreavc.com to use. This is the fastest CPU based decoders.
Third would tip (= 1 tip for free)
Ffdshow-tryout.sourceforge.net
CoreAVC and certainly FFDShow-tryouts can to the post-processing settings try.

Long story short sense: Your problem can be solved.
MP4 is just the container. You do not know what the tone play. Possibly this is AC3.

A-cut:

Here again the software, which I use: www.scratchlive.net
audio with aac - 2007

Tobi:
I have just the manual VIDEO SL-1.0_Manual.pdf overflown. Especially
Also p. 18 + 19th

The following would be interesting point:
. VIDEO-SL used to render the H.264 QuickTime engine or
It also uses one (faster) codec installed.
From the manual, I will but not smart. Possibly. You have the time
Manufacturers letter. Because the important point is, will the
Video output.
Option 1: He uses QuickTime to play, it remains an almost
No other than the raw CPU with the violence done. So Penryn
Buy when available. The second option would be (better) to DivX
. The Manual is also loud and DivX is less CPU. In the
Quality see no difference, so the bit rate can easily raise
(3000 -> 4000 bps).
Option 2: He uses installed (Windows) codecs. DivX does for the
Also, in any case, according to Manual. However, I do not know what he and H.264
Material. If the previously intercepted and QuickTime will,
Then vinegar. The good of variant 2 is just that there are better (=
Faster with less CPU load to 0% CPU load) for your codecs
Computers exist.
We could also play out that Option 2 is and I send 'you
Just something to try for. It destroys nothing on the machine and
Klein. It would be the CoreAVC codec for testing. The fastest CPU based
H.264 decoder.
I know 'me with the video stuff actually very good, because I Also
H.264 Encoding for the PS3 do.

A-cut:
you mean that I directx 10 would have better perfomance?

Tobi:
I am pretty sure that he dissolve DirectX effects, etc.
Takes. But no one needs to DirectX 10th
To be honest, I hardly think that it is better with DirectX 10
Running. They have perhaps the only written so that the graphics
Modern somewhat, and because the DirectX graphics cards namely 10
Partly hardware support for H.264 decoding. The latter was
But according to my information, also with XP and DirectX 9

Have yet was found in the manual:
"VIDEO-SL uses QuickTime to decode video files, and it has all the benefits
And limitations that your currently installed version of QuickTime has.
VIDEO-SL requires QuickTime version 7 or above. "
For performance perspective that is unfortunately not quite ideal.

A-cut:
I have play videos with only quicktime -> cpu utilization 15%
If I turn on the video plug-in (can be granted) turn , runs cpu
To 50%, excluding a 2 videos, or to have loaded! Then when I
turntables videos on the left / right turntables invite, then
Get up 85-95%

Tobi:
Sounds plausible. If it without videos 50%, and you 2x video upload,
Each ± 15% CPU load produce land at 80%.
Why the already 50% load, I can not say exactly. I guess
: Video and audio processing is always in the "Pipe +
Filter style. Units So there is the audio (or video) transform
And can now operate in and chained.

Short example: The two videos which are each, and then decodes
About one has a blend knob. This dissolve controller has two inputs
For each of the videos, another for a rotary potentiometer to set with
What proportion VideoA and VideoB be seen. And finally a
Output for the result of video.

What makes the software now when you have the "Video" feature activating: He
Runs the whole effect pipe & filter chain high. But that in the
Original video inputs for the A + B have said nothing (= black
Picture). The whole chain expects effects in real time, but the whole time
Effects (eg fading) - even if the raw material is black.

Just as an audio equalizer also e.g. Basses raises, even if your
Audio source in a zero level (silently).
That would explain why he immediately did 50% CPU even if you have no video
Have chosen.
We know too little about video-SL as the works internally and there should
You know, to say what something is:

. If the actual DirectX 10 features in your engine use and
XP part in CPU expect, it would really what Vista.
But think, "I always less. The software, there's also für'n
Mac and has no DirectX 10th EVER

. Penryn: QuickTime is not as far as I know SSE4 optimized. How much you
By the additional cache (2 x 2 -> 2 x 3MB), I can not say exactly.
Finally, the performance plays probably increase only on the
GHz level of profit. But there have indeed already 2.2 GHz was not
Slow.

A-cut:
Mp4/divx (3000 kbps) / aac -> quicktime has only played audio, no video
(Black) would therefore it with video-sl not work.

Tobi:
It is true that QuickTime so readily NO DivX can play.
Again back to the idea:
. Quicktime MPEG4 AVC created with you 15% processor load
. You need 2 videos, you intertwined mixed, the proposed deal with approximately
30% processor load Down. Only 2 of Decoden's videos.

MPEG4 AVC (H.264) is the successor of MPEG4-SP (DivX, XviD). MPEG4-SP
Requires less CPU resources. On your system at the same bit rate
Estimated reduces the load of 30% -> 20%.

That is not much, and for the 50% base load's doing nothing. Nevertheless:
If all your attempts fail, you have a little bit more freedom
Processor cycles need, then you have the DivX way.

That would be like that for a PLUGIN QuickTime installed, the
QuickTime also plays DivX. 3ivx stands such Quicktime Plugin
:
Www.3ivx.com
I did not fast on the benchmark. But 3ivx is faster than
QuickTime. Here only for the encoder a benchmark (but you use the
Decoder):
Www.3ivx.com
For the decoder, there's no comparison to QuickTime standard, only the
Www.3ivx.com

A-cut:
Consequently work video-sl only with mp4/h264 (3000 kbps) / aac -> high cpu
Utilization. witch ratings generally recommend you to me to club deployment? So what bitrate, frames, etc.

Tobi:
Essentially you have two large screws in which you can rotate:

1st The resolution (720 x 576, 640 x 480, 320 x 256, etc.)
2nd The bit rate

You can somewhat reduce the bit rate. This makes it of course only so far,
As it looks good. However, the only return in the 15%
Video Decoding. If you Reduce the bit rate, then reduced
The 15% CPU load, perhaps to 10% - 12%. Nothing more.

The resolution is quite serious: the dissolution reduce you something,
Then goes to a faster decoding (15%). On the other hand,
But also the mixer and rendering pipeline, which connects, and
So far with 50% processor load Beech suggests, much less do. 720 x 576
4x has as many as 360 pixels x 288th You also reduce resolution
(Of course again just as much as absolutely necessary, because it goes to the
Video quality), then you reduce the processor load to a greater degree.

Again, a brief summary:

. Video-SL used for decoding QuickTime. From this point of view, manufacturers
Therefore favourable, because video-SL very easy and convenient for both Windows +
MacOS X can be offered. A disadvantage is that Windows
Acceleration functions e.g. H.264 video is not used.

. The (QuickTime) video decoding can only processor with raw violence
. Or a little bit of a plug of 3ivx. Because "3ivx
MPEG-4 5.0 heavily benefits from fast memory buses, fast processors and MMX,
SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 AltiVec. "As faster video format is then 3ivx
MPEG4-SP (H.263, DivX, XviD) MPEG4 AVC (H.264) preferred.

. Resolutionreduced for a total of more speed. Bit rate is reduced
, Is not quite as much.

A-cut:
Resolution because: because I thought I made zero, but makes total
Sinn what you write to me. I really do not know what resolution
to beamer at club should take. Rich 640x480?

Tobi:
640 x 480 must be rich. Everything else is really a luxury.

PAL (ie normal TV), 720 x 576 and uses are still not even complete (wg. overscan). I was yesterday in 1er (P1 in Munich) there was Pro-7 Grey's Anatomy. Quite normal PAL on Beamer. Submits.

At home here I have also a 1280 x 720 Beamer. Of course, the cool, as if in HD resolutions to go. But to club with a lot of moving images and lighting effects can (and must) also lower resolutions.

When 640 x 480 produces very little load, can still 800 x 600. But not really need higher (for the moment until the very software better).

At Vista: I would make it's parallel. That goes, too. There's instructions on xps forum. I also view it (no longer XP), but it is simply not "rockstable. The 2-4h would for the moment the club will not survive. So you can compare to the productive use for the better.

As long as one of serato not know what features they use OpenGL, but it is worth a test.

On the subject of Vista and resources:

. In fact, Vista is very intelligent with the resources. When the Task Manager opens, we see that he eats a lot of Ram. However, the Ram is not gone, but used only makes sense:

A) + caches SuperFetch: Vista invites the needed programs (in memory) even though not yet opened. He guided by what programs you use often. Requires however, a different program memory, he gives the cache + SuperFetch memory now. So the used memory is not gone.

B) The more RAM you have, the more aggressive use of the Vista Ram:
Www.tomshardware.com
So that the effect of a) increasingly comes to fruition.

3GB to 3.5 GB are certainly enough memory. Also planned for your applications.

There is a trifle in Vista, which is not quite ideal. Need not read (the automatic translation here is not good):
Support.microsoft.com

This could also your software under Vista, because it uses OpenGL or DirectX. Long story short sense: The fix for this is in SP1 of Vista also there.

Not surprised: 32-bit Vista can of the installed 4GB unfortunately only about 3.2 to 3.5 GB. Is it easy. Can we not change. But you install it is due to the small tick performance.

BTW: What is at the 80% CPU utilization bad? As long as the software is written intelligently enough so that you also at high utilization music / video still without delay can control is everything in butter. The laptop, the heat from (as long as you are on a flat solid surface 's and not on the lap did).

If the software is about priorities, nor interactive enough. Interfere with the 80-90% utilization. In the video have no dropouts when the buffer (-> setting in software) are high enough, because he always has something Calculating.

A-cut:
Again "coreavc" and 3ivx -> are player or codecs? Once
I install these, the link with quicktime? Or
work case?

Tobi:
Your software works like this:

MP4 file ---> QuickTime import / Decoding ---> Video Mixing SL -> Beamer

Now the screws already see where you can rotate:

1st MP4 File: That's what we are. Resolution and bit rate vary, and see what happens

2nd QuickTime: There's very little. This brings me immediately.

3rd Video SL: At the new version wait. Respectively. The two performance settings buffer + Quality (p.16 manual) test

CoreAVC is a DirectShow filter (= Windows import filter for MPEG4 AVC). Blöderweise we get to the video-SL is not up and running. Because just video-SL QuickTime, and we use the QuickTime account the CoreAVC not get.

The 3ivx hangs in the QuickTime plug than pure. Looks like this:

MP4 file ---> QuickTime import (with 3ivx plugin) ---> Video SL -> Beamer

The 3ivx plugin "replaces" the normal routines of QuickTime faster own decoder. From this "3ivx MPEG-4 5.0.2 for Windows suite"
Www.3ivx.com

Need only
"- 3ivx QuickTime MPEG-4 video codec"
But I do not know whether he 3ivx you to the QuickTime MPEG-4 solo can install or if you just install everything.

Whether it really works, I can not promise 100%:

1st The 3ivx QuickTime plug definitely affects Quicktime encoder. Hopefully it hangs in the decoder and accelerates. For the latter, you need to get. The former is you care.

2nd These are all just the 2 * 15% CPU load for the video's reading. The 50% "base load" will not upgrade.

3ivx: Stuck into QuickTime pure, but also whether there is really Decoden
(Playing) war, "I do not get out somehow.

On the website I think only information that he is in the encoder hang.
So perhaps 3ivx not want to try. Bring perhaps unfortunately,
Nix.

A-cut:
The results without serato - only quicktime player:
320x240 - 1008 kbps = 12-30%
640x368 - 2064 kbps = 19-30%
640x480 - 2064 kbps = 19-30%
960x528 - 2064 kbps = 20-33%
1280x720 - 2064 kbps = 25-40%

Tobi:
As you can see, that is best at 640 x 480.
A "mini-Note" - not that important, but it is always cheaper 2s powers in the bitrate. Faster, it's also not large, is still cheaper. So, 1024, 2048, 4096 as bit rate.

A-cut:
What I have observed: the Memory utilization
varies depending on the
Quicktime - Window Size
... at normal
Window Size approximately 65,000 k
Full image as soon as I go on about 71000 n -> at this observation
320x240 - 1008 kbps

Tobi:
This is normal for QuickTime. It may even be that in Windows with the Windows Media Player as well. Did not really mean. It is because nothing on the used zurückschließen acceleration functions.

Since I also own programming: Using the acceleration functions in the video memory of the graphics card, as a programmer must still have a copy of the image in memory. The reason is because Windows by e.g. Other programs in the memory of the graphics card can erase - even your own content. When that happens, you get a message and you have to take care of the drum copy in the main memory in the video card to copy.
So big picture => consumes more memory, even if the picture only in the graphics card on even greater scale sizes.

A-cut:
The results with serato you can using the screenshots below.

Tobi:
I am amazed that he even in the 320 x 240 @ 1024 bits per second, still 100% utilization.

But he consumed, especially since "only" 700MB of RAM. I would also exclude the following:

. In all renditions, he is not 80, but actually rather 100% CPU load. As I see it the buffer memory from 1GB still not filled, it might be that he plays quite normal video and mixes and all free CPU time it is possible to the buffer fill. That would only change if the CPU buffer is full.

Could you therefore look at the performance settings to reduce the buffer memory. And then maybe play 320 x 240. Can also make a few effects (which the club would also do) and the Windows Task Manager 'views on the "Performance" mode. The whole time then for a period of 1min observed. If the CPU load continuously up to 100%? So, as with the transfer tax of music? Or he moved slightly below?

Bring the "Quality" setting performance at something, if you get the Down Rules?

I still have info that he mixes images 50Hz. That is very noble, but to football + Formula 1 is the normal TV only played at 25 Hz (24 Hz cinema). It is clear that he at 50Hz twice as much to do as at 25Hz and your source images are also only at 25 fps (I see in the screenshot of Super). Sure see effects in 50Hz better, but if you have the screw to rotate would also be nice. Therefore look to whether the "quality" regulator performance under influence - perhaps also to the fps / Hz

The performance controller to provide low-quality (is only test method) has also brought nothing, right?

To buffer:
512MB buffer around 50 seconds from the 320 x 240 video at 50 fps.

At 640 x 480's are only 12.5 seconds (4x because the video is so large: 2x horizontally + 2x = 4x vertically so great).

I am still quite amazed that he even at very low settings, such as 320 x 240 @ 25fps at 1024 bps, in principle, the CPU until the attack was. As long as you have somewhere in system performance, the CPU is not a permanent head up, it should still work well - that govern the buffer.

Small interim result:

. try with 10% more performance by Ram or a "mini-CPU Upgrade brings because hardly was. Actually this is the right Bums missing.

. When Quality control on "low" what does (in terms of CPU load), then it is probably the image quality at 640 x 480 at "low" quality better than 320 x 256 at "medium" quality.

Because relatively flat performance lacking much so that it more visible under 100% CPU load is not much remains an exception expensive hardware upgrades.

If the above with the quality regulators nix brings video and software updates SL is not available, then I would still play Vista. Is unfortunately expensive - the whole installation. Not because Vista is so much better, but because the entire video acceleration capabilities in Vista work quite differently than XP. I know that some good acceleration under Vista and XP only implemented in software. But believe me because even very little idea that it brings, because then the manufacturers would have the same written: Better Vista.
______________________________________________________________________


all right, there was now a lot of input. You can post your opinion here