Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (9)
to Nokia N900 by Arno_11 - 4 hrs, 50 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 17 hrs ago - more...
|
2011-12-08
, 12:55
|
|
Posts: 1,033 |
Thanked: 1,013 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#122
|
Originally Posted by marxian
That's the only issue I've had as well. However, with an overclocked DSP it plays much more of those previously unplayable flvs.
I've had trouble with some FLV files (resolution lower than native display resolution) on both the N900 and the N950. I was genuinely surprised to find that the N9(50) would not play these. I expected an improvement over the capabilities of the N900. Epic fail.
| The Following User Says Thank You to patlak For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-12-08
, 13:52
|
|
Posts: 1,196 |
Thanked: 2,708 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Hanoi
|
#123
|
Originally Posted by patlak
Actually I never tried the N900 for video's. So for all I know it could be very well the case that the N900 playback performance is as bad as the N9.
My N900 plays anything non-HD that I've thrown at it. How's the N9 any different? Doesn't it have the same codecs as the N900? Btw, ppi on the N9 is much higher compared to the well praised SA+ on the GS2. It's really sharp, not N900 sharp, but it's close.
The N8 is more inviting for video's because it could HDMI stream to a TV, where the N900 TV out was a blurry mess.
and the N9 is tempting for video watching as well because of the nice built in display (for video).
The matured N900 should have the advantage of having support for more codecs, but does it play back anything smoothly, I guess you know the answer better.
N-Series non HD video playback performance:
2009 - 2010 - 2011
N900 < N8 <(?) N9
|
|
2011-12-08
, 14:11
|
|
Posts: 1,033 |
Thanked: 1,013 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#124
|
Originally Posted by ste-phan
Actually I never tried the N900 for video's. So for all I know it could be very well the case that the N900 playback performance is as bad as the N9.
Originally Posted by patlak
WTF??? My N900 plays anything non-HD that I've thrown at it.
| The Following User Says Thank You to patlak For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-12-08
, 14:20
|
|
Posts: 1,196 |
Thanked: 2,708 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Hanoi
|
#125
|
Originally Posted by patlak
That is the theory.
Btw, ppi on the N9 is much higher compared to the well praised SA+ on the GS2. It's really sharp, not N900 sharp, but it's close.
Not that it matters much for video, and this is off topic but the N9 has 2 disadvantages: lower PPI of about 251 vs (267 for the N900) and of course the Pentile matrix display tech creating an unsharp image.
So basically the GS2 (218PPI) may still be more pleasing to they eye due to lack of Pentile technology.
The new 720p Android 4.0 showcase Nexus phone also features the dreaded Pentile matrix display technology but reportedly the PPI of about 315 count is high enough to compensate for the Pentile unsharpness.
Will it play the HD content the screen can natively display? Probably a few of the MKV Container formats.
 |
|
2011-12-08
, 15:06
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#126
|
Originally Posted by ste-phan
If you're interested, the new HTC Rezound has a 720p display at 342 ppi, and it uses a classic RGB layout (i.e., no pentile). There is a good review showing off a close-up of this display against an older pentile display at The Verge.
The new 720p Android 4.0 showcase Nexus phone also features the dreaded Pentile matrix display technology but reportedly the PPI of about 315 count is high enough to compensate for the Pentile unsharpness.
Will it play the HD content the screen can natively display?
And yes, it plays HD video up to 1080p, as most of the current crop of high-end smartphones do, and 720p video is rendered natively.
Originally Posted by ste-phan
Just a note: MKV is a container format, not a collection of formats. A Matroska file can contain one or more video tracks encoded in any sort of codec (along with multiple audio and subtitle tracks). Normally, the reason why one MKV-contained video will run on a device and another will not is due to the video's codec, not because of the container's format.
Probably a few of the MKV Container formats.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-12-11
, 05:57
|
|
Posts: 543 |
Thanked: 151 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Germany
|
#127
|
Originally Posted by ste-phan
Well the N900 is able to play true HD movies smooth with a few modifications, the topic here says that the N9 isn't able to do that.
Actually I never tried the N900 for video's. So for all I know it could be very well the case that the N900 playback performance is as bad as the N9.
...
I don't understand that though, the N900 has the same GPU and a similar CPU performance (Overlocked) so shouldn't be both phones able to play videos in a similar speed?
For example my Lenovo A1 tablet is using a OMAP 3622 CPU (Cortex-A8, 1GHz) with a PowerVR SGX 530 GPU which is also a pretty similar hardware configuration. 720P videos play with higher bitrates very smooth on the A1, better than on the N900 for some reason.
|
|
2011-12-11
, 11:48
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#128
|
Originally Posted by Crogge
Yeah, a few modifications... all you need to do is (a) rip out the existing OS Kernel and replace it (with kernel-power), (b) overclock both the CPU and the DSP chip, and (c) install a set of graphics libraries ripped off of the N9.
Well the N900 is able to play true HD movies smooth with a few modifications, the topic here says that the N9 isn't able to do that.
I don't understand that though, the N900 has the same GPU and a similar CPU performance (Overlocked) so shouldn't be both phones able to play videos in a similar speed?
Granted, these things are technically easy to accomplish, but they would probably make ordinary users cringe and certainly won't make Nokia happy...Presumably, the N9 (just like the stock N900) has been optimized for use as a phone, which means attempting to maximize battery life and provide a decent lifespan for the handset, rather than driving the poor thing to its limits.
I would imagine the N9 will be able to show off a lot more power than the N900, when/if the overclockers finally start pushing it. The N9's OMAP is designed on a 45nm scale, while the N900s is on a 65nm one, so it should be able to run quite hard.
Originally Posted by Crogge
I think you've kinda answered your own question. The N900 has a 600 MHz OMAP 3430, the A1 has a 1 GHz OMAP 3622. When you overclock the 3430 up towards 1 GHz, you naturally start getting video framerates comparable to the 3622.
For example my Lenovo A1 tablet is using a OMAP 3622 CPU (Cortex-A8, 1GHz) with a PowerVR SGX 530 GPU which is also a pretty similar hardware configuration. 720P videos play with higher bitrates very smooth on the A1, better than on the N900 for some reason.
|
|
2011-12-11
, 17:28
|
|
Posts: 40 |
Thanked: 12 times |
Joined on Dec 2011
|
#129
|
As promised, here's a list showing the difference between the 720p movie recorded by both the N8 and N9. Info is extracted via Media Player Classic - Home Cinema
I've also attached the full data in txt format.
Essentially: h.264 vs h.263?
N9 (P.R. 1.0)
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 8 204 Kbps
Format : MPEG-4 Visual
Format profile : Simple@L6
Format settings, BVOP : No
Format settings, QPel : No
Format settings, GMC : No warppoints
Format settings, Matrix : Default (H.263)
Codec ID : 20
Duration : 34s 150ms
Bit rate : 8 067 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 32.8 MiB (98%)
Language : English
N8 (before camera update, 25 fps)
Overall bit rate mode : Constant
Overall bit rate : 12.1 Mbps
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=25
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 9mn 57s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 12.0 Mbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 24.964 fps
Minimum frame rate : 6.543 fps
Maximum frame rate : 25.021 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.522
Stream size : 854 MiB (99%)
N8 (after camera update, 30 fps)
Overall bit rate mode : Constant
Overall bit rate : 12.1 Mbps
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=30
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 2mn 18s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 12.0 Mbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 30.000 fps
Original frame rate : 15.000 fps
Minimum frame rate : 29.970 fps
Maximum frame rate : 30.030 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.434
Stream size : 198 MiB (99%)
I've also attached the full data in txt format.
Essentially: h.264 vs h.263?
N9 (P.R. 1.0)
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 8 204 Kbps
Format : MPEG-4 Visual
Format profile : Simple@L6
Format settings, BVOP : No
Format settings, QPel : No
Format settings, GMC : No warppoints
Format settings, Matrix : Default (H.263)
Codec ID : 20
Duration : 34s 150ms
Bit rate : 8 067 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 32.8 MiB (98%)
Language : English
N8 (before camera update, 25 fps)
Overall bit rate mode : Constant
Overall bit rate : 12.1 Mbps
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=25
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 9mn 57s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 12.0 Mbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 24.964 fps
Minimum frame rate : 6.543 fps
Maximum frame rate : 25.021 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.522
Stream size : 854 MiB (99%)
N8 (after camera update, 30 fps)
Overall bit rate mode : Constant
Overall bit rate : 12.1 Mbps
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Format settings, GOP : M=1, N=30
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 2mn 18s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 12.0 Mbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 30.000 fps
Original frame rate : 15.000 fps
Minimum frame rate : 29.970 fps
Maximum frame rate : 30.030 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.434
Stream size : 198 MiB (99%)
|
|
2011-12-11
, 17:36
|
|
Posts: 1,033 |
Thanked: 1,013 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#130
|
Originally Posted by Copernicus
CPU clock has no play in video processing. DSP is doing all the work.
I think you've kinda answered your own question. The N900 has a 600 MHz OMAP 3430, the A1 has a 1 GHz OMAP 3622. When you overclock the 3430 up towards 1 GHz, you naturally start getting video framerates comparable to the 3622.
Also to an earlier message, N8 plays HD video from it's HDMI port so it's capable of displaying the "full" pixelcount of 720P movies without a sweat.