|
2010-11-17
, 22:29
|
|
Posts: 365 |
Thanked: 98 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#2
|
|
2010-11-17
, 22:31
|
|
Posts: 820 |
Thanked: 436 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Portsmouth, UK.
|
#3
|
|
2010-11-17
, 22:37
|
Posts: 37 |
Thanked: 17 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
@ Karachi
|
#4
|
The Following User Says Thank You to uhbhatti88 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-11-17
, 22:49
|
|
Posts: 435 |
Thanked: 160 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#5
|
|
2010-11-17
, 23:08
|
Posts: 1,341 |
Thanked: 708 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#6
|
|
2010-11-17
, 23:51
|
|
Posts: 534 |
Thanked: 723 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#7
|
|
2010-11-18
, 03:39
|
Posts: 1,463 |
Thanked: 1,916 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Edmonton, AB
|
#8
|
|
2010-11-18
, 08:04
|
|
Posts: 365 |
Thanked: 98 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#9
|
depends on the bitrate and/or profile you're using. the MPEG-4 codec works for me, next best thing to H.264 (which is supported but only the baseline profile, plus its more cpu/gpu intensive)
i use Handbrake and convert all my HD stuff into 800x448 using the MP4 codec at 90% quality with stereo audio mixdown. works brilliant on the N900, never stutters (even though i havent overclocked). max file size should be less than 4GB tho.
hope this helps.
|
2010-11-18
, 08:06
|
|
Posts: 365 |
Thanked: 98 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#10
|
just render something at as near 480 x 800 as you can.
If the video is larger and the screen can't display it, why waste CPU/GPU on it?!
2d