AVI question

[LaserBack]

Most of the AVI video files included on the AmigaOS3.9 CD seems to have the following details:

Video:
Codec = Cinepak (cvid)
Size =  320 x 240
FPS = 20

Audio:
Codec = PCM (Uncompressed)
Rate = 22050Hz
Channels = 1 (Mono)
Sample = 16 bit

Have in mind that although the width is 320 pixels, the height varies in order to preserve aspect ratio.

This could at least be a starting point.

videos are in cinepack because cinepack is enough fast and low quality to be played on the slow 68k cpus
but generally avi videos in the web around 1998-2000 were using intel indeo 3 or 4, much better quality/small filesize but requiring more cpu power which most Amigas could not handle

[fishy_fiz]

Sysinfo reports 38mips for my 40mhz '040, so an '060@50mhz is clearly more than that, let alone an overclocked '060.

Also Cinepak isn't restricted to video as low quality as the sample videos on OS3.9. I converted transformers3 to avi/cinepak a while back and it looks quite decent. I tried with IV as well and Cinepak is a bit cleaner. IV does however compress better, and will give better image quality the faster the cpu (doesn't drop as many frames on slower hardware, but instead will lower image quality(why it was suitable for online video in the late 90's.)
This "improved" picture quality of course only scales as far as the source materials encoding.

As for ffplay, correct me if Im mistaken, but aren't arthurs compiles statically linked against sdl?
Im not aware of a native backend for it against cgx/p96

[AAACHIPSET]

Sysinfo reports 38mips for my 40mhz '040, so an '060@50mhz is clearly more than that, let alone an overclocked '060.

Also Cinepak isn't restricted to video as low quality as the sample videos on OS3.9. I converted transformers3 to avi/cinepak a while back and it looks quite decent. I tried with IV as well and Cinepak is a bit cleaner. IV does however compress better, and will give better image quality the faster the cpu (doesn't drop as many frames on slower hardware, but instead will lower image quality(why it was suitable for online video in the late 90's.)
This "improved" picture quality of course only scales as far as the source materials encoding.

what program did u use to convert ?? ..i use  freemake  video  converter ..for most things ..just works easy ..but tried avis but thats when i get get codec errors when i try to play on a1200

[fishy_fiz]

I used Virtualdub.
Bare in mind however that you'll need to first install Codecs for Windows to be able to read the different filetypes of the videos you're trying to convert (remember that avi is a container type, not a codec).
Virtualdub by default converts to assorted legacy Codecs (including cinepak), but doesn't read many "out of the box", and instead relies on Windows Codecs (different to what video players use).

[LaserBack]

Sysinfo reports 38mips for my 40mhz '040, so an '060@50mhz is clearly more than that, let alone an overclocked '060.

no no
 you are fake you are a liar
 sysinfo on a 040/40mhz reports only 30 mips

a 060/50mhz does 38 mips in sysinfo
all of this can be verified easily in the web

[Thorham]

no no
 you are fake you are a liar
 sysinfo on a 040/40mhz reports only 30 mips

a 060/50mhz does 38 mips in sysinfo
all of this can be verified easily in the web

And you believe those figures? Because according to that, a 40 and 60 are almost the same speed per mhz, and that's obviously nonsense. 60s do need properly optimized versions of software to really be faster, though.

Basically it doesn't matter what Sysinfo says, because Sysinfo isn't a good benchmark. Use good benchmarking software, and even then you have to be careful. Different 68000 family processors need different optimizations to really run efficiently, and a one size fits all benchmark like Sysinfo that also doesn't do real life tests (hugely important!) is basically a crappy benchmark.

People need to stop relying on Sysinfo, period.

[fishy_fiz]

no no
 you are fake you are a liar
 sysinfo on a 040/40mhz reports only 30 mips

a 060/50mhz does 38 mips in sysinfo
all of this can be verified easily in the web

Haha, yes Im fake, not real at all. My posts are merely figments of your imagination and/or doctored with photoshop.

Seriously though, either pull your head in and stop acting like a pork chop, or keep digging so I can enjoy the laugh.
I dont need the web to verify what my own computer tells me
For the record, I dont trust sysinfo anyway, but that wasn't the point.

[paul1981]

Haha, yes Im fake, not real at all. My posts are merely figments of your imagination and/or doctored with photoshop.

Seriously though, either pull your head in and stop acting like a pork chop, or keep digging so I can enjoy the laugh.
I dont need the web to verify what my own computer tells me
For the record, I dont trust sysinfo anyway, but that wasn't the point.

I'm fake as well, and I faked this screen shot with Deluxe Paint:

[fishy_fiz]

Very nice.
If we weren't both fake I'd be impressed

Seriously though, what clockrate is that? Eighty mhz?

[zipper]

I'd guess 66.

[mechy]

no no
 you are fake you are a liar
 sysinfo on a 040/40mhz reports only 30 mips

a 060/50mhz does 38 mips in sysinfo
all of this can be verified easily in the web

Are you doomy?

 sysinfo,or as many Amigan's call it sysMISinfo was not designed for 060(at least not until a recent updated version from another person who took it over). Also many of the things it reports are not accurate.

[amiman99]

The bottleneck on playback of AVIs could be from HD transfer speed or memory access.
Anyway...
From Wiki on 68060:

• ~88 Mips @ 66 MHz
• ~110 Mips @ 75 MHz
• ~36 MFlops @ 66 MHz

[AndyFC]

Is FroggerNG only for amigas with FPU? It prompts for one when it starts up but I couldn't see it in the requirements. Or is there a non-FPU version please?

[NovaCoder]

I thought I'd give Virtualdub another try with CinePak and got a reasonable result, I'll have to see if I can tweak it further.   The audio is very low, not sure why.

[youtube]PeGbGRJLxwE[/youtube]

[LaserBack]

And you believe those figures? Because according to that, a 40 and 60 are almost the same speed per mhz, and that's obviously nonsense. 60s do need properly optimized versions of software to really be faster, though.

Basically it doesn't matter what Sysinfo says, because Sysinfo isn't a good benchmark. Use good benchmarking software, and even then you have to be careful. Different 68000 family processors need different optimizations to really run efficiently, and a one size fits all benchmark like Sysinfo that also doesn't do real life tests (hugely important!) is basically a crappy benchmark.

People need to stop relying on Sysinfo, period.

yes the 040 and the 060 are same speed per mhz , ie idem core excepting the 060 have a faster FPU
an overclocked 040/50mhz is 38mips idem like the 060/50mhz

and yes SYSINFO is the best benchmark,that's because was always used for comparison

now if ppl like you who have a 060 like to use  benchmarks like sysspeed because they make you feel you have a faster CPU is a different history

[LaserBack]

Haha, yes Im fake, not real at all. My posts are merely figments of your imagination and/or doctored with photoshop.

Seriously though, either pull your head in and stop acting like a pork chop, or keep digging so I can enjoy the laugh.
I dont need the web to verify what my own computer tells me
For the record, I dont trust sysinfo anyway, but that wasn't the point.

you are a liar and fake everybody knows that a 040/40mhz is only 30 mips on sysinfo