371–380 of 576 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's impossible for video players to be exactly accurate on normal monitors as most computer monitors don't handle movie frame rates. Either a frame gets skipped or elongated here and there, audio get resampled while video speed changes, etc. but there's definitely no silver bullet due to imperfect hardware not matching movie data formats
48hz support seems pretty common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's impossible for video players to be exactly accurate on normal monitors as most computer monitors don't handle movie frame rates. Either a frame gets skipped or elongated here and there, audio get resampled while video speed changes, etc. but there's definitely no silver bullet due to imperfect hardware not matching movie data formats
It's relatively easy to get 100us level precision in CPU wait and mpv has 42ms (42,000us) to emit each frame (at 24fps). Nevermind that the monitor refresh is likely 60fps or better so each frame lasts for two+ monitor frames anyway. As long as it is consistent with each frame timing it should be very rare that a video frame is skipped or doubled up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you filled a bug report about this?
I’m not the person you asked, and I don’t have that issue, but this common trend of replying to any criticism with “have you filed a bug report?” rubs me the wrong way. I have opened detailed issues on IINA which describe a bug, how to reproduce, and the correct behaviour (according to their own docs), and they’ve just sat there unacknowledged for years. IINA’s issue count is twice as big as mpv’s, despite being a UI…
But surprisingly it was only IINA that got my problem fixed when I reported it with how to reproduce and correct behaviour. Hence why I asked if he had filed any bug report.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree! VLC is what it is today because the authors understood video standards enough to make the _right_ abstractions that could generalize to ~every video format ever. That is no easy task. Video container standards are utterly perverse, and seem to delight in stomping over even the most innocent intuitions about what you would expect to find in a stream of bits that purports to contain "video". They often refuse…
You speak as if VLC is the pinnacle of video player technology. I know it is an open source darling, but it's been a buggy, overengineered mess since forever, which is why many use alternatives as mpv, IINA when I used macOS, SMplayer, etc. On fact, with all due respect, I never understood why VLC was so widely praised. It is the only player to stutter for me on Windows, to get lost in its settings page, to have a te…
You can throw at it a broken mp4 file, a https url with basic auth, a weirdly encoded video, a DVD full of scratches, etc, chances are VLC will manage to play it (at least what is playable). There is just no other video player in the world that achieve that.
A lot of other video player might beat it at other features, but just straight video playing, VLC is just the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is taken out of context. He actually respects contributors, including their decision to not implement reverse play. The meaning here is "if you think the existing contributors are as incompetent and lazy as you are implying, then do better". I think he got caught up in the argument and that he should have just put the question in a FAQ entry and lock the thread before people start mentioning nazis.
> lock the thread before people start mentioning nazis. Which will invariably happen. What was that "rule" called again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree! VLC is what it is today because the authors understood video standards enough to make the _right_ abstractions that could generalize to ~every video format ever. That is no easy task. Video container standards are utterly perverse, and seem to delight in stomping over even the most innocent intuitions about what you would expect to find in a stream of bits that purports to contain "video". They often refuse…
You speak as if VLC is the pinnacle of video player technology. I know it is an open source darling, but it's been a buggy, overengineered mess since forever, which is why many use alternatives as mpv, IINA when I used macOS, SMplayer, etc. On fact, with all due respect, I never understood why VLC was so widely praised. It is the only player to stutter for me on Windows, to get lost in its settings page, to have a te…
Sadly VLC devs have let their software deteriorate to the point where VAAPI hw decoding doesn't even work anymore, they think it's ffmpeg's fault... except ffmpeg supports it just fine, VLC is just too lazy to update their ffmpeg calls to use the api correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an open-source project, not commercial software. In your job, you have to special-case some things because the alternative is not delivering what the boss wants. Regardless of the problems this may cause, or how much tech debt it generates - those are (in the end) business decisions, and while you can make a case to the boss that implementing the special case feature is going to cause huge problems, it's…
But he didn't "just" say no: > If it's so easy, why are you not doing it? Talk is cheap. > I'll be waiting for your patch. Surely you're not as lazy and incompetent as the existing volunteer developers. I'd say that is pretty toxic. Specifically, that is no way to talk about other volunteer developers that contribute their time. It is precisely the kind of language that keeps people away from contributing to open sou…
> that is no way to talk about other volunteer developers that contribute their time.
He is not dissing the other developers. He is one of those developers that had been called lazy and incompetent by the forum posters. For example (from the thread):
> it's mostly an excuse to not implement the feature (and be "cool" about it with one-word answers).
> Please consider implementing this. It's not hard.
> All of the players I've named are open source, so it's easy to check how they are doing it.
> Seriously how hard is it to implement it? All Ive been hearing from the developers are excuses, excuses, excuses. I dont see how other players were able to have it. This is just pure laziness.
> I'm not here to program the app, I'm just here to find a simple feature and/or request it.
Personally, I would hold the people using a free product and begging for features without contributing anything to a higher standard than the developers that donate their time implementing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The developer responds to a comment: But many players are able to do it for years. with: If it's so easy, why are you not doing it? He's not just a butthole, he's a stereotypical open source developer butthole. On the other hand, if he worked for Microsoft, he'd be claiming that it takes a PhD to do it...
In his defense, some commenters had a pretty rude attitude. You cannot demand developers to implement a feature or call them out on being lazy. Nobody even offered to research how other players accomplish this. They just expect that because they believe it can be done someome should do the work for them. At least Remi was actually andering questions on the forums. This attitude towards open source maintainers is what…
The correct response would have been something like "it's more difficult to do and in some circumstances it will have very bad performance so we haven't done it yet".
This is classic "It's hard and I can't be bothered so I'll make up some technical reason why it's impossible". Programmers do this all the time and it's kind of annoying.
(And yes I understand video coding and I know why it's more difficult in some cases.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always saw VLC as subpar. A typical case of software that's just trying to copy what the pioneers do. As we all know, mediocrity it not antithetical to popularity, and VLC has become very popular indeed. However, it never pushed the envelope in terms of codecs, features and performance and as a result was never at the forefront of opensource video playing: mplayer got the ball rolling with rapid breakthroughs inclu…
> I always saw VLC as subpar. A typical case of software that's just trying to copy what the pioneers do. What pioneer is/was VLC trying to copy? Media Player Classic? Windows Media Player? Before VLC, the ecosystem of video players was a mess, and if you came across a format you didn't already had installed codecs for, chances were you couldn't play that file. But VLC always could play it, no matter what file, as lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's an open-source project, not commercial software. In your job, you have to special-case some things because the alternative is not delivering what the boss wants. Regardless of the problems this may cause, or how much tech debt it generates - those are (in the end) business decisions, and while you can make a case to the boss that implementing the special case feature is going to cause huge problems, it's…
If you say "no, we're not pursuing this feature because it's impossible" and users have used other software that implements the feature to a reasonable degree of functionality, you're not doing yourself any favours in terms of shutting down demands. You'd be better off either not giving a reason at all, or giving reasons that are clearer to people who aren't as knowledgable.