Hi,
I’ve been playing a bit with the SDL and I was wondering if it could
possible to ask the SDL inside a program if there was some hardware support
for YUV rendering ?
I’ve been having a look a all the documentation and didn’t manage to find an
answer to that question.
Please forgive my newbieness if my question has an obvious answer 
Yours,
Pierre–
(trait trait espace)
Pierre Baillet
@Pierre_Baillet
I’ve been playing a bit with the SDL and I was wondering if it could
possible to ask the SDL inside a program if there was some hardware
support for YUV rendering ?
I’ve been having a look a all the documentation and didn’t manage to
find an answer to that question.
This is an excellent, basic question. I talked a little about this
with Ryan Gordon at LWE. Colorspace conversion should be a very
important part of what SDL is capable of abstracting. I know that
the main focus of SDL seems to be the 3D aspect, but if multi-media
and full motion video apps could use it too, that would rock.
I couldn’t not get SDL to give acceptable frame rates on either X 3.3.6
or X 4.0.1 using the YUV stuff. My assumption is that SDL is
restraining itself X in all these situations. Here is a basic rule
of life: X IS NOT FAST ENOUGH! Unless you have a giga-Hz machine,
you can’t do the clipping and gratuitous memory copying that any
versatile X extension does, and still have something that can display
30 times a second. I don’t know how Loki gets all that 3D stuff to
work, but I’m sure they’re not calling XvShmRenderEverythingNow
function.
What’s my point? Well… I’ve gotten hardware overlay working fast
enough on the intel i810 using my own X extension module and a little
hacking to the driver. Once this is cleaned up (along with a little
cooperation from the driver people), it could be a nice little extension
that SDL could use. My basic question is: how much should SDL be
programmed to go around X? X was not made for full motion anything,
we all know this. So we either ditch X (with isn’t happening), or
we go around it.
I want to like SDL, and maybe it’s the lord and savior in the 3D
arena, but in the 2 dimensional world, it just doesn’t make the cut.
This should change.
rant over,
-dave
I second this motion. SDL should make sure that the 2D arena is compleate
before doing everything else. There is no reason why a 640*480 movie
shouldn’t be able to play at 30fps with SDL.
-Benjamin Meyer
Dave Klint wrote:> > I’ve been playing a bit with the SDL and I was wondering if it could
possible to ask the SDL inside a program if there was some hardware
support for YUV rendering ?
I’ve been having a look a all the documentation and didn’t manage to
find an answer to that question.This is an excellent, basic question. I talked a little about this
with Ryan Gordon at LWE. Colorspace conversion should be a very
important part of what SDL is capable of abstracting. I know that
the main focus of SDL seems to be the 3D aspect, but if multi-media
and full motion video apps could use it too, that would rock.I couldn’t not get SDL to give acceptable frame rates on either X 3.3.6
or X 4.0.1 using the YUV stuff. My assumption is that SDL is
restraining itself X in all these situations. Here is a basic rule
of life: X IS NOT FAST ENOUGH! Unless you have a giga-Hz machine,
you can’t do the clipping and gratuitous memory copying that any
versatile X extension does, and still have something that can display
30 times a second. I don’t know how Loki gets all that 3D stuff to
work, but I’m sure they’re not calling XvShmRenderEverythingNow
function.What’s my point? Well… I’ve gotten hardware overlay working fast
enough on the intel i810 using my own X extension module and a little
hacking to the driver. Once this is cleaned up (along with a little
cooperation from the driver people), it could be a nice little extension
that SDL could use. My basic question is: how much should SDL be
programmed to go around X? X was not made for full motion anything,
we all know this. So we either ditch X (with isn’t happening), or
we go around it.I want to like SDL, and maybe it’s the lord and savior in the 3D
arena, but in the 2 dimensional world, it just doesn’t make the cut.
This should change.rant over,
-dave
Gentlemen, if ye are really so upset about SDL’s 2D performnce then do
something about it. People before you have had these same complaints and
have taken time out to fix them as best they could.
SDL is still a 2D lib, the 3D stuff was just something that happened one
week. The bulk of the graphics functions are still all 2d, with only about
6-7 OpenGL related functions.
So, before you rant on about the inadequacies of other peoples work please
consider what your own work will add.On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Benjamin Meyer wrote:
I second this motion. SDL should make sure that the 2D arena is compleate
before doing everything else. There is no reason why a 640*480 movie
shouldn’t be able to play at 30fps with SDL.I want to like SDL, and maybe it’s the lord and savior in the 3D
arena, but in the 2 dimensional world, it just doesn’t make the cut.
This should change.
Bother! said Pooh stuffing Jim’s useless corpse into a dustbin.
I couldn’t not get SDL to give acceptable frame rates on either X 3.3.6
or X 4.0.1 using the YUV stuff. My assumption is that SDL is
restraining itself X in all these situations.
Well, with current CVS version I get ‘gtv’ running full screen on a
1024x768x32bpp screen at 30 FPS using the XVideo extension for XFree
4.0… And this using 20 % of the CPU on a P2 333.
So YUV overlays are certainly accelerated on my set-up, but your board
must support the XVideo extension (I have a TNT2 Ultra using NVIDIA’s
own XFree drivers).
And one other point, make sure you compile SDL yourself… Most of the
RPM you can find were compiled with X 3.3 => no XVideo support => no
acceleration at all.–
Lionel Ulmer - @Lionel_Ulmer
My Advogato Wine diary : http://www.advogato.org/person/bbrox/
And one other point, make sure you compile SDL yourself… Most of the
RPM you can find were compiled with X 3.3 => no XVideo support => no
acceleration at all.
This will hopefully change very soon as XFree86 4.02 should fix some
backwards compatibility problems which is the reason I haven’t built
with it yet. (Quake III needs these fixes as well)
See ya!
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software
Hello,
Does anyone know when the doc will be up to date, 1.1.4 doesn’t seems to be
?
Any new stables versions planned ?
Stephane> > And one other point, make sure you compile SDL yourself… Most of the
RPM you can find were compiled with X 3.3 => no XVideo support => no
acceleration at all.This will hopefully change very soon as XFree86 4.02 should fix some
backwards compatibility problems which is the reason I haven’t built
with it yet. (Quake III needs these fixes as well)See ya!
-Sam Lantinga, Lead Programmer, Loki Entertainment Software