Solve : HD video playback jumpy?

1.	Solve : HD video playback jumpy?
Answer» I just recently bought a Canon HD camcorder. I've shot a few videos and they playback fine on my HD TV, but when I play them on my PC through the supplied software, they're a little jumpy. Then, if I try to open them with VLC or WMP, they're even worse. My specs are as follows: AMD 2.4ghz dual core, 3gb ram, Nvidia 8400gs 256mb. Could it just be that my video card can't handle it?Not likely Try to re un install and re install one of you media players.I just noticed too while using the software that came with the camera that during video playback CPU usage jumps to around 96%, which is a little odd. During playback on VLC and WMP it doesn't go that high, but the performance is worse. I'm dl-ing the most current version of VLC right now and will do an uninstall and reinstall to see if that helps.Great, now VLC is not cooperating. I downloaded ver. 1.1.5 and it prompted me to uninstall the previous version, which I did, but then when I attempt to install the new version, I get the following message: Error opening file for writing: C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe Argh. Now what? UPDATE: Nevermind on the VLC issue, I figured it out. Had to stop a VLC process through the task manager before it WOULD install the new version. Still having issues with the jumpy playback using updated VLC however... Also, I do have the most current drivers for my graphics card installed. I got this information from VLCs media information after playing a short clip (in case any of it is important): Video: Decoded: 366 blocks Displayed: 7365 frames Lost: 261 frames Type: Video Codec: H264 - MPEG-4 AVC Resolution: 1920x1080 Frame RATE: 59.940059 Un install ALL media software. Including the player that came with the camcorder. Reset, and ty VLC again. A common problem is the Open command may call TWO different players. Right click and use Open With... instead to make sure just one player is running. Also, avoid the full screen mode.How about converting the video(free video converters) from your camcorder first before playing it with your media software? Transfer the video file from your camcorder to your PC and convert to another AVI format and save it to a created folder then play it. See if it makes a difference. I did that using Quick Media Converter, and it does make a difference but at the expense of quality. If I convert it to an avi, it runs smooth, but the resolution is lower (kinda defeats the purpose of an HD camcorder), plus, I don't want to have to convert every single video I make. I tried converting it to HD also using QMC but still no good. It wasn't jumpy, but it appeared to be in slow motion while the audio was at regular speed. I'm a little worried that I bought this camera and now won't be able to save and watch videos. As I said earlier, the videos are perfect when I play them straight from the camera to the TV, it's only on the PC that I'm having a problem. Also, the videos I've recorded are at 1920x1080, but the max resolution of my video card is 1680x1050, could that be a problem?From what I know is that a HD(High Definition) movie format is for a HDTV to attain the quality and the rest depends on the native resolution and of course another case are 3Ds. In your PC's case having a lower video output from your videocard might be the problem. Another thing is the output format. VLC has been highly regarded in terms of video playback.It just occurred to me, what if I buy a bluray rewritable drive? If the playback is jumpy on my pc, will I be able to burn the videos onto a bluray disc and have it be good quality, or will it burn it in the same jumpy quality? Also, I've been doing some reading and think that while my PC may be part of the problem, it may be more my OS. From what I've read, Win7 is better at handling HD video. Is there any truth to that? If so, would there be any benefit to simply installing Win7 (instead of my current XP Pro)?Quote From what I know is that a HD(High Definition) movie format It's not a "format" really- it's just a standard resolution. 1920x1080 is HD; standard NTSC is 320x200 (if I remember correctly), etc. Quote from: roccenstein on January 11, 2011, 10:00:10 PM From what I've read, Win7 is better at handling HD video. Is there any truth to that? None at all. Quote AMD 2.4ghz dual core, 3gb ram, Nvidia 8400gs 256mb You beat the bare minimum requirements recommended for HD video playback; except that the video card should have a core clock of at least 600Mhz; the 8400GS gas a core clock of 567; not a huge difference, but recall that those were the absolute bare minimum requirements; consider that the "minimum" requirements almost never give good results. It's to get it to work with lower specifications, because the popular codecs like FFDShow, Klite pack, CCCP, and the one built in to VLC do not make the optimal usage of the Hardware; generally speaking, they almost always do a large amount of the decoding task on the CPU, which is why the minimum requirement needs a dual-core or a fast single-core. The only decoders I've been able to use that shirk that requirement are those included with or written for the video card (for example, the ATI Media player program that is included with many ATI cards), as well as the Nvidia decoder software, which works hand-in-hand with a supported GPU. Additionally there are "optimized" codecs that work in software mode, such as CoreAVC. The problem is of course that all of these are commercial (except for the ATI media player which comes with ATI cards, but trust me, I make it sound better then it really is). Basically, the recorded resolution of the camera is simply too much for the computer to handle without a lot of optimization; generally speaking it's got to push about 2,073,600 pixels for every single frame, each pixel has at least 24 bits of colour information, so that's almost 6.2MB of raw information for a single frame, at a standard 24fps that's over 149MB every second! If the camcorder records the data "raw" then your hard disk will almost certainly be a bottleneck; most HD's can only exceed 150Mbps or so in bursts. If it compresses it, then your computer has to read the compresses data, decode it and expand it into the full 149MB, and then send that all along to the video subsystem. sometimes the codecs themselves offload the actual coding/decoding to the video card if possible, so that can speed it up, but it's still a lot of information to process; the camcorder->TV connection uses the camcorder, which has a special hardware configuration specifically designed for video playback/recording. Thanks for all the info BC! So right now, barring purchasing a whole new computer, (which, frankly, is out of the question, financially speaking), will buying a better video card boost my performance enough to allow the videos to run smoothly, or will my CPU still be a bottleneck?Quote NTSC was the first widely adopted broadcast color system. ...The [original] standard recommended a frame rate of 30 frames (images) per second, consisting of two interlaced fields per frame at 262.5 lines per field and 60 fields per second. Other standards in the final recommendation were an aspect ratio of 4:3... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC This would mean 525 lines. But not all lines are visible. Still,that it much LESS than even the most basic VGA adapter. the 640 by 480 is oftentimes lowest available any almost any video card. My current laptop rims at 1280 by 720 for best overall performance. But I can crank it up to 1920 by 1080 and still looks good on plain video files. But trying to watch HDTV on a PC is pushing it unless you have more graphic power.

Answer»

I just recently bought a Canon HD camcorder. I've shot a few videos and they playback fine on my HD TV, but when I play them on my PC through the supplied software, they're a little jumpy. Then, if I try to open them with VLC or WMP, they're even worse. My specs are as follows: AMD 2.4ghz dual core, 3gb ram, Nvidia 8400gs 256mb. Could it just be that my video card can't handle it?Not likely Try to re un install and re install one of you media players.I just noticed too while using the software that came with the camera that during video playback CPU usage jumps to around 96%, which is a little odd. During playback on VLC and WMP it doesn't go that high, but the performance is worse. I'm dl-ing the most current version of VLC right now and will do an uninstall and reinstall to see if that helps.Great, now VLC is not cooperating. I downloaded ver. 1.1.5 and it prompted me to uninstall the previous version, which I did, but then when I attempt to install the new version, I get the following message:

Error opening file for writing:

C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe

Argh. Now what?

UPDATE: Nevermind on the VLC issue, I figured it out. Had to stop a VLC process through the task manager before it WOULD install the new version.

Still having issues with the jumpy playback using updated VLC however...

Also, I do have the most current drivers for my graphics card installed.

I got this information from VLCs media information after playing a short clip (in case any of it is important):

Video:
Decoded: 366 blocks
Displayed: 7365 frames
Lost: 261 frames

Type: Video
Codec: H264 - MPEG-4 AVC
Resolution: 1920x1080
Frame RATE: 59.940059
Un install ALL media software. Including the player that came with the camcorder. Reset, and ty VLC again.
A common problem is the Open command may call TWO different players.
Right click and use Open With... instead to make sure just one player is running. Also, avoid the full screen mode.How about converting the video(free video converters) from your camcorder first before playing it with your media software? Transfer the video file from your camcorder to your PC and convert to another AVI format and save it to a created folder then play it. See if it makes a difference. I did that using Quick Media Converter, and it does make a difference but at the expense of quality. If I convert it to an avi, it runs smooth, but the resolution is lower (kinda defeats the purpose of an HD camcorder), plus, I don't want to have to convert every single video I make. I tried converting it to HD also using QMC but still no good. It wasn't jumpy, but it appeared to be in slow motion while the audio was at regular speed. I'm a little worried that I bought this camera and now won't be able to save and watch videos. As I said earlier, the videos are perfect when I play them straight from the camera to the TV, it's only on the PC that I'm having a problem. Also, the videos I've recorded are at 1920x1080, but the max resolution of my video card is 1680x1050, could that be a problem?From what I know is that a HD(High Definition) movie format is for a HDTV to attain the quality and the rest depends on the native resolution and of course another case are 3Ds. In your PC's case having a lower video output from your videocard might be the problem. Another thing is the output format. VLC has been highly regarded in terms of video playback.It just occurred to me, what if I buy a bluray rewritable drive? If the playback is jumpy on my pc, will I be able to burn the videos onto a bluray disc and have it be good quality, or will it burn it in the same jumpy quality?

Also, I've been doing some reading and think that while my PC may be part of the problem, it may be more my OS. From what I've read, Win7 is better at handling HD video. Is there any truth to that? If so, would there be any benefit to simply installing Win7 (instead of my current XP Pro)?Quote

From what I know is that a HD(High Definition) movie format

It's not a "format" really- it's just a standard resolution. 1920x1080 is HD; standard NTSC is 320x200 (if I remember correctly), etc.

Quote from: roccenstein on January 11, 2011, 10:00:10 PM

From what I've read, Win7 is better at handling HD video. Is there any truth to that?

None at all.

Quote

AMD 2.4ghz dual core, 3gb ram, Nvidia 8400gs 256mb

You beat the bare minimum requirements recommended for HD video playback; except that the video card should have a core clock of at least 600Mhz; the 8400GS gas a core clock of 567; not a huge difference, but recall that those were the absolute bare minimum requirements; consider that the "minimum" requirements almost never give good results.

It's to get it to work with lower specifications, because the popular codecs like FFDShow, Klite pack, CCCP, and the one built in to VLC do not make the optimal usage of the Hardware; generally speaking, they almost always do a large amount of the decoding task on the CPU, which is why the minimum requirement needs a dual-core or a fast single-core.

The only decoders I've been able to use that shirk that requirement are those included with or written for the video card (for example, the ATI Media player program that is included with many ATI cards), as well as the Nvidia decoder software, which works hand-in-hand with a supported GPU. Additionally there are "optimized" codecs that work in software mode, such as CoreAVC. The problem is of course that all of these are commercial (except for the ATI media player which comes with ATI cards, but trust me, I make it sound better then it really is).

Basically, the recorded resolution of the camera is simply too much for the computer to handle without a lot of optimization; generally speaking it's got to push about 2,073,600 pixels for every single frame, each pixel has at least 24 bits of colour information, so that's almost 6.2MB of raw information for a single frame, at a standard 24fps that's over 149MB every second! If the camcorder records the data "raw" then your hard disk will almost certainly be a bottleneck; most HD's can only exceed 150Mbps or so in bursts. If it compresses it, then your computer has to read the compresses data, decode it and expand it into the full 149MB, and then send that all along to the video subsystem. sometimes the codecs themselves offload the actual coding/decoding to the video card if possible, so that can speed it up, but it's still a lot of information to process; the camcorder->TV connection uses the camcorder, which has a special hardware configuration specifically designed for video playback/recording.

Thanks for all the info BC!

So right now, barring purchasing a whole new computer, (which, frankly, is out of the question, financially speaking), will buying a better video card boost my performance enough to allow the videos to run smoothly, or will my CPU still be a bottleneck?Quote

NTSC was the first widely adopted broadcast color system.

...The [original] standard recommended a frame rate of 30 frames (images) per second, consisting of two interlaced fields per frame at 262.5 lines per field and 60 fields per second. Other standards in the final recommendation were an aspect ratio of 4:3...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

This would mean 525 lines. But not all lines are visible. Still,that it much LESS than even the most basic VGA adapter. the 640 by 480 is oftentimes lowest available any almost any video card. My current laptop rims at 1280 by 720 for best overall performance. But I can crank it up to 1920 by 1080 and still looks good on plain video files.
But trying to watch HDTV on a PC is pushing it unless you have more graphic power.

Solve : HD video playback jumpy?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment