Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:40:25 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: "Gary T. Corcoran" <garycorc@idt.net> Cc: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM, multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Software MPEG-2 (Was: Posting prefix) Message-ID: <199707262140.OAA11329@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jul 1997 17:12:58 EDT." <33DA685A.446B9B3D@idt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I am afraid that just because Intel tried and failed does not mean that we can't do it. Too many open questions. Is the programmer or team competent? There is a huge difference between someone working 9 and 5 and a nearly obsessed programmer or hightly motivated programmer tackling the problem. Which platform where they using? Did they use directdraw ? (assuming that they used win95 or winnt) What resolution , color depth and bitrate where they using? The list goes on and on... At the very least is worth investing the possibility of decoding mpeg2. Amancio >From The Desk Of "Gary T. Corcoran" : > Tony Kimball wrote: > > > Is the mpeg2 format documented online? I understand that conventional > > wisdom requires hardware assist, but that just represents an > > algorithmic challenge.... > > I heard Intel (first hand) say that a 233MHz MMX Pentium will *almost*, > *but not quite* be fast enough for software MPEG-2 decode (they tried it). > In other words, while it generally worked, for high complexity/high motion > scenes, it hiccuped. So until most of us have 300+ MHz processors, we'll > need to use hardware for MPEG-2 decoding. > > Of course, if you'd like to get a head start and start writing code for > future processors, be my guest... ;-) > > Or maybe you can find a "trick" that Intel didn't think of... ??? > > Gary Corcoran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707262140.OAA11329>