i think it depends on your graphic card:
- Feature Set A: Introduced complete acceleration for H.264 and Introduced partial acceleration for MPEG-1, MPEG-2, VC-1/WMV9
- Feature Set B: Introduced complete acceleration for MPEG-1, MPEG-2, VC-1/WMV9 and H.264., Note that all Feature Set B hardware cannot decode H.264 for the following widths: 769-784, 849-864, 929-944, 1009-1024, 1793-1808, 1873-1888, 1953-1968, 2033-2048 pixels.
- Feature Set C: Introduced support for H.264 MVC (Multiview Video Coding) at stereoscopic resolutions up to 1080p24/1080i30, allowing complete acceleration of Blu-ray 3D video
- Feature Set D: Introduced 4K resolution / QFHD video decoding at up to 3840 x 2160 pixels
You can check what your card supports here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_PureVideo
[RESOLVED] Oddball resolution - 2560x720p
Re: Oddball resolution - 2560x720p
I'm sure that even if you have the right card, some changes will be required to DGDecNV.
Re: Oddball resolution - 2560x720p
Can't open anything that big right now! I could add an error message instead of hanging.
Re: Oddball resolution - 2560x720p
Just curious: where might one encounter a 2560x720 stream? Isn't that a 3.55:1 aspect ratio (I never heard of such a thing)? Some custom commercial project e.g. museum or retail or ...?MrVideo wrote:Am I correct in assuming that a 2560x720p25 h.264 elementary stream file cannot be decoded by dgindexnv?
Re: Oddball resolution - 2560x720p
a screen capture of a dual-screen setup with 1280x720 resolution would be one guess
Re: Oddball resolution - 2560x720p
Very inneresting...MrVideo wrote:Close. A SBS 3D 1920x1080 video recoded to double 1280 resolution to keep as much of the 3D resolution as possible, even though the 1080 is reduced to 720.mastrboy wrote:a screen capture of a dual-screen setup with 1280x720 resolution would be one guess
In order to do cross-eyed viewing of the 3D video, in 3D, the left ad right video images must be swapped. What works for passive 3D TVs, doesn't work for cross-eyed viewing.
I can see why the 2560 was used, because the resolution of 1920 is really only 960 pixels. Keeping it at 1280 would have reduced the horizontal pixel count to 640, for each image.
Cable/DBS 3D TV really kinda sucks because of the reduced resolution. ESPN really pushes their 3D, but the horizontal resolution is only 640 pixels and viewers are blowing that up to 1920 pixels. Ouch What really sucks is that the ESPN viewer can't see what is being produced in the field, and that is two full resolution 1280 width video images.
Thanks for telling.