Atrix vs hd2 software decode - Atrix 4G General

Atrix vs hd2 software decode - Atrix 4G General

I recently did some testing. I encoded 2 of the exact same videos at h264 AVC .mp4 video files. Both at 2,000kbps video bitrate. The hd2 was at 800x480 with a 5:3 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I do realize that the reduced resolution is easier on the hardware but doesn't use much more cpu. I will do another test at a more universal resolution like say 720x480 for both devices to test again. The atrix was at 960x540 with a 16:9 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I then played back both videos on both devices in Vital Player Pro in software decoding. I set the clock to 750Mhz on the atrix and it was unable to playback smoothly. I had to increase to roughly 800Mhz to barely playback smoothly. For flawless playback, I needed 900Mhz+ on the atrix. With the hd2 on the other hand I first set the clock to 576Mhz and it was very choppy. So i increased it until it could playback smoothly. I raised it to 652Mhz and was able to playback flawlessly. I'm losing a lot of respect for the atrix with it not being able to decode without raising the cpu way up. It's a dual core but it's likely the OS and the application can't utilize the additional thread. This however shows that when running on one thread, the HTC HD2's cpu is much more powerful while software decoding video under vital player. I suppose once the roms and kernel's get more perfected, I suppose the Atrix will perform better. The down side is that's not going to happen for some time.
Your thoughts would be highly appreciated.
ATRIX @ EternityProject kernel, android 2.3.4, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1210Mhz
HTC HD2 @ Rafpigna's 2.0, android 2.3.3, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1536Mhz

1chris89 said:
I recently did some testing. I encoded 2 of the exact same videos at h264 AVC .mp4 video files. Both at 2,000kbps video bitrate. The hd2 was at 800x480 with a 5:3 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I do realize that the reduced resolution is easier on the hardware but doesn't use much more cpu. I will do another test at a more universal resolution like say 720x480 for both devices to test again. The atrix was at 960x540 with a 16:9 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I then played back both videos on both devices in Vital Player Pro in software decoding. I set the clock to 750Mhz on the atrix and it was unable to playback smoothly. I had to increase to roughly 800Mhz to barely playback smoothly. For flawless playback, I needed 900Mhz+ on the atrix. With the hd2 on the other hand I first set the clock to 576Mhz and it was very choppy. So i increased it until it could playback smoothly. I raised it to 652Mhz and was able to playback flawlessly. I'm losing a lot of respect for the atrix with it not being able to decode without raising the cpu way up. It's a dual core but it's likely the OS and the application can't utilize the additional thread. This however shows that when running on one thread, the HTC HD2's cpu is much more powerful while software decoding video under vital player. I suppose once the roms and kernel's get more perfected, I suppose the Atrix will perform better. The down side is that's not going to happen for some time.
Your thoughts would be highly appreciated.
ATRIX @ EternityProject kernel, android 2.3.4, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1210Mhz
HTC HD2 @ Rafpigna's 2.0, android 2.3.3, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1536Mhz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What rom were you using to test this? If its a blur based rom, that would explain it.

4.5.91.MB860.ATT.en.us
------------------------
Android 3.0
------------------------
ATR-HoneyComb1.2-IX
Both phones were running Launcher Pro Plus with identical configurations. The htc hd2 however was running a CM7 rom. Both phones have a 384M VM Heap from within build.prop. The HTC HD2 @ 240 lcd density. The atrix @ 285 lcd density.

1chris89 said:
4.5.91.MB860.ATT.en.us
------------------------
Android 3.0
------------------------
ATR-HoneyComb1.2-IX
Both phones were running Launcher Pro Plus with identical configurations. The htc hd2 however was running a CM7 rom. Both phones have a 384M VM Heap from within build.prop. The HTC HD2 @ 240 lcd density. The atrix @ 285 lcd density.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's your problem. Even with an alternate launcher, Motoblur is still running on the Atrix. CM7 also has a repuation for running faster than stock firmwares. If you want a fair comparison, you'd need to run CM7 on the Atrix.
I'm not trying to dispute what your saying, it certainly is plausible that a non-dual core optimized application would perform better on a single core device. Motoblur has a reputation for being quite bloated, so you just have to take it into consideration.

Jotokun said:
There's your problem. Even with an alternate launcher, Motoblur is still running on the Atrix. CM7 also has a repuation for running faster than stock firmwares. If you want a fair comparison, you'd need to run CM7 on the Atrix.
I'm not trying to dispute what your saying, it certainly is plausible that a non-dual core optimized application would perform better on a single core device. Motoblur has a reputation for being quite bloated, so you just have to take it into consideration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool, sounds good. I'll rerun the test with cm7 beta on the atrix with the new cm7 oc kernel. I'll make sure the vm heap is at 384m just like the htc hd2. I may have to add it manually to the build.prop. If i'm not mistaken, it's missing in the cm7 beta.
Cool

nstalled cm7 and eternityproject kernel for 1100mhz. Same result. Couldn't maintain stable playback until 912Mhz. I'll reconvert the video into a universal 720x480 one at a 16:9 pan and scan and the other at a 5:3 pan and scan. I may even do a universal standard video to just compare the two devices.

1chris89 said:
nstalled cm7 and eternityproject kernel for 1100mhz. Same result. Couldn't maintain stable playback until 912Mhz. I'll reconvert the video into a universal 720x480 one at a 16:9 pan and scan and the other at a 5:3 pan and scan. I may even do a universal standard video to just compare the two devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Makes me wonder why it needs to be up that high to run on the Atrix. I'm sure if the video player were set up to use both cores it'd be better, but its still kind of surprising just how much extra speed it needs to run comparably.

The atrix has 35% more pixels than the other. So if the clock needs to be 35% higher, that seems reasonable. I doubt the app is dualcore optimized
Sent from my Motorola Atrix 4G MB860 using Tapatalk

Magnetox said:
The atrix has 35% more pixels than the other. So if the clock needs to be 35% higher, that seems reasonable. I doubt the app is dualcore optimized
Sent from my Motorola Atrix 4G MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With the 35% increase in resolution, do you think a 260Mhz clock frequency would be required to playback on a device with DDR2 memory which should in every way possible outperform an outdated cpu with half the amount of ram running at low clocks as well. I'll do some more tests to make the test more even for a better comparison. I can say that even with that increase in resolution, the HD2 has a sharper pixel and the pixels are almost unnoticeable. The colors are very realistic and natural. On the atrix however even with the increased resolution. The pixels are very noticeable. The colors are overly saturated and seems to be lacking in the amount of colors the HD2 displays. I was pretty sure the Atrix has a 24bit display rather than a 16bit that the HD2 has. Is there a hack to make sure 24bit is activated on the Atrix?
later

1chris89 said:
On the atrix however even with the increased resolution. The pixels are very noticeable. The colors are overly saturated and seems to be lacking in the amount of colors the HD2 displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pixels are only noticeable on the atrix if your holding your phone about 5 inches or closer to your face, as true with most displays. If you are holding it that close or closer, I might recommend reading glasses as the screen can be a little small at times.
You can definitely tell the atrix is running at a 24bit color depth as the colors dont look like something from a 90s computer display. Although, I will agree that I've seen some apps out there that look like they might have been written in the 90's
Also just out of curiosity... 2 threads really necessary?
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App

Is this guy for real? Aside from the obvious, how about trying the video playback at 960x540 on the hd2 and let us know how that comparison goes.
I voided my warranty.

Magnetox said:
The atrix has 35% more pixels than the other. So if the clock needs to be 35% higher, that seems reasonable. I doubt the app is dualcore optimized
Sent from my Motorola Atrix 4G MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One, the APIs available to app devs cannot access 2 cores since the dalvik VM was coded for only 1 core.
Two, you do not need a 35% faster clock just to upscale a video 35%. Upscaling video takes very little processing power in the first place, and unless you're watching a high profile h.264 720p video file, you aren't even using all of 1 core anyways.

video format @ avc h264 mp4, 720x480, auto aspect, letterbox, 2,000kbps video bitrate, cbr, aac @ 128kbps 48,000khz 2 channel.
MX Video Player @ Software (Fast Mode)
Playback results
htc hd2 - cm7 - rafpigna 2.0 oc gb - 384Mhz
motorola atrix - blur 2.3.4 rom - faux123 - 608Mhz
Vital Player Pro
htc hd2 - cm7 - rafpigna 2.0 oc gb - 652Mhz
motorola atrix - blur 2.3.4 rom - faux123 - 912Mhz
cm7 atrix rom or blur 2.3.4 rom with eternityproject kernel or the 1210Mhz kernel had no effect of improving the cpu performance for this test. Results remained constant.
End of test.

My Moto Razor boots faster than my Moto Atrix, Atrix fails.

Pointless thread

Moboplayer?
I didn't do any scientific testing, I just played back a tv show from my phone using software decoding. It worked fine at 456MHz using Moboplayer. I don't know the bitrate of the video, so I'm willing to bet it isn't too high, but just a thought. It has codecs specifically for ARMv7 instructions.

Who cares? Could you tell a difference with out the tests? I can't. Plus in general the Atrix is more powerful than the 2009 HD2.

BravoMotorola said:
Who cares? Could you tell a difference with out the tests? I can't. Plus in general the Atrix is more powerful than the 2009 HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't necessarily care, but I thought id see since I was bored.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App

Related

Video Quality AMAZINGLY good

Not used to making video's as all my previous phones
Universal,Hermes,TytnII,Raphael,Touch HD didn't make them too well.
So just tried out making video's while driving (as a passenger) and
they look stunningly good. There's lot's of sun/cloud changes
and it picks up beautifully.
Frame rate is above 20FPS average in MPEG 640x480. Nice.
EDIT : from comments below I see most people expect more. For once I'm on the satisfied side

What .. it too can't play 640x480 flawlessly ? I saw some benchmarks which played such videos at 200%.

Dr.Sid said:
What .. it too can't play 640x480 flawlessly ? I saw some benchmarks which played such videos at 200%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you read his comment???? where does it say it cant play 640x480
A sample recording would be nice

Smooth playback is 24 fps and beyond. if it's between 20-24, it sucks.

It's the recording rate in 640x480 not the playback speed.
It will almost always keep the 23.99 frames per second while recording
So I meant to say, it's a great video recorder.

I think the title of this thread is a little bit naive!
C'mon 640 x 480 has been on most high end phones now since 2006!
We now have alot of phones with 640 x 480, a fair few with 720 x 480 (D1?) and one or two with 720p recording.
The hardware in this phone is capable of 720p as is that of the Palm Pre, Iphone 3GS and probably others too.
So, in summary - I dont see 640 x 480 as amazingly good at all!
On the topic, do any devs think it would be possible to up the recording to it's 720p capabilities?

See above. I accidently posted twice.

jamuk2004 said:
The hardware in this phone is capable of 720p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Qualcomm advertises Snapdragon (rather over-optimistically in my opinion) as being capable of 720p video playback - where do they say it's capable of 720p capture?

My bad !
I did not notice he talks about RECORDING, I thought he talks about playback.

lucid said:
Frame rate is above 20FPS average in MPEG 640x480. Nice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So video quality is "surprisingly mediocre", then. Is there any non-HTC smartphone in the world that can't manage at least 30fps at VGA resolution? The Samsung i8910HD can almost manage 24fps at a resolution of 1280x720. If the HD2 could better that, then maybe you could describe it as "amazingly good".

The Snapdragon probably should be able to record in 720P from a hardware point of view. My currrent phone, the i8910, records in 720P at around 22-24fps, and its only packing a 600mhz Cortex 8 CPU.

So i went to the registry and messed with some values a bit. I set the bitrate much higher than the default. It would still capture video @ about 25 fps. Can't really tell the difference in quality, but the filesize has increased by a 100%. I'll try to see if there are more reg settings to mess around.

NZtechfreak said:
The Snapdragon probably should be able to record in 720P from a hardware point of view. My currrent phone, the i8910, records in 720P at around 22-24fps, and its only packing a 600mhz Cortex 8 CPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a lot more to it than CPU power, I think - it's a bandwidth issue rather than MIPS. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows Mobile imposes some limitations too.

[Q] Android Video Player?

I cant seem to find a single video player in the Market that plays a range of formats, primarily wmv and avi that I have downloaded.
Any suggestions?
I have to make the commute to work a little more bearable since I broke my Sony e-reader...

i know that the 'rock player' plays avi and mkv files, have you tried that one?

Thanks for your reply, I just checked out rock player and it doesn't seem to work.... opens the video for a split second before closing it again...
I guess I'll keep looking.
Any dev looking to port VLC over to android?

BoogWeed said:
Thanks for your reply, I just checked out rock player and it doesn't seem to work.... opens the video for a split second before closing it again...
I guess I'll keep looking.
Any dev looking to port VLC over to android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oh thats strange, it works on my hero (they have different versions for different devices, make sure you downloaded the ARMv6 one)
but tbh its not great because theres a lag between the video and the audio, most probably because of the hero's slower processor. i'm looking for a good video player as well

Hmm.. Rock Player started to work by itself.. kinda.
Plays the video for about 15 seconds (very choppy, even after all tasks killed and using a blank Sense Scene) and then freezes the phone, have to remove the battery..

Have u overclocked?
My hero wouldnt run RockPlayer on 691MHz as MAX. Had to down it to 652.
in the end i deleted it, since the video was choppy. i guess the processor just isnt up to handling large video + i hate ruining films on a small screen.
there are some forum posts on VLC Forum about porting to Android... i think the conclusion was that it wasnt going to happen?

My phone is indeed overclocked, to 672Mhz.
I'll try messing around with the OC settings and see if it makes a difference.
I know the processor is *only* 528MHz (stock), but I remember watching videos perfectly well on my Packard Bell 166Mhz, 32mb RAM, 2mb Video card pc...
I think Android should be doing a LOT better with with handling Video, see my post in the "Android 2.3?" thread...

BoogWeed said:
I know the processor is *only* 528MHz (stock), but I remember watching videos perfectly well on my Packard Bell 166Mhz, 32mb RAM, 2mb Video card pc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a significant difference between the low quality avi files of the past and the h264 mkv content of today. Some of the recent files require a minimum of a 2GHz processor to run (understandably 1080p content, but still). And lets not forget about the instruction sets which provide desktop cpu's with a boost in those areas. Furthermore, considering your phone only has a cpu and no dedicated or otherwise gpu it isn't all that surprising.
Even running an average quality dvd rip avi file my CPU is running at between 15-25% and I have an overclocked dual core 3.33GHz intel cpu E7300 (25% is roughly 833MHz). Not to mention GPU usage, which at this time I can't be bothered to record.
I understand that this is not definitive evidence but I am using it to show that you are simplifying the problem. TV shows and movies that are ripped now have much higher quality resolutions and bitrates than those of the past, it is not surprising that they require higher processing power. Realistically a 528MHz low power phone cpu is unlikely to be able to keep up with these improvements. Just like the low power Intel Atom desktop chips fail to run 1080p video (even the dual core one) running somewhere in excess of 1GHz (think its 1.6GHz).
That wasn't meant to be such a huge rant...

HAHA! I know I totally simplified it but I guess I was just trying to say that a smart phone in 2010 should be able to handle video with no problems...
My upgrade is due in January, so new handset here I come!
Will be funny to see the (still awesome, despite my rant) HTC Hero become my backup phone...

Youtube quality not HD

I noticed on an ipod touch 4, that the quality was HD.
I wonder why the the quality on the Android devices play in HQ.
Side by side, makes me cry to see what I am lacking.
Just odd Google's major product plays better on a non-Google device.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

I haven't used YoutTube App much BUT is there a point of playing it at higher quality?
480p = 640 x 480
480p = 704 x 480
our screens = 800 x 480
The benefit we get from 720p -> 480p is fairly minimum as you can see :/

Kinda making this up, but it might be because of the higher resolution display that the iphone and itouch have.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

yea the iphone 4 and ipod touch 4 does have a higher resolution

But when you're watching on a 4" screen does it really matter? Not trying to watch a movie off Youtube after all.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

gTen said:
I haven't used YoutTube App much BUT is there a point of playing it at higher quality?
480p = 640 x 480
480p = 704 x 480
our screens = 800 x 480
The benefit we get from 720p -> 480p is fairly minimum as you can see :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
que? are those resolutions the old crappy TV lines that werent really even 480i?
480p= 720x480
720p ( i assume you meant) = 1280x720
So if our phones are 800x480, 480p would be a better image than a scaled 720p, I seriously doubt our phones have the scalers of most modern TVs or Monitors. Native resolution is pretty much always better. (the widescreen images being letterboxed 480p like out of a dvd player).
Yeah they have amazing, almost unnecessary resolution for a 3.5" screen. Great for text readability, but so is SAMOLED
So anyways, if a 960x640 (apple) device is actually defaulting to scaling 720p down, theyre actually shooting themselves in the foot... unless their scaler is a faroudja... but with iOS its all about status, so having that little indicator on the screen say HD, even though the device falls a bit short of actually delivering, and degrading the image by scaling when it is not necessary on such a small device (any phone), it just makes us look better . Wow, im used to having these discussions relating to CRT projectors, not phones So yeah, stick to native resolution or smaller.
That said, if our TV out option worked, then 720p or whatever the best output is would be a good default, if that option were plugged in.

ungovernable1977 said:
que? are those resolutions the old crappy TV lines that werent really even 480i?
480p= 720x480
720p ( i assume you meant) = 1280x720
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant what I meant but I forgot one 720 x 480..there are multiple standards for 480p based on the sample such as4:3 (640x480)..

ungovernable1977 said:
que? are those resolutions the old crappy TV lines that werent really even 480i?
480p= 720x480
720p ( i assume you meant) = 1280x720
So if our phones are 800x480, 480p would be a better image than a scaled 720p, I seriously doubt our phones have the scalers of most modern TVs or Monitors. Native resolution is pretty much always better. (the widescreen images being letterboxed 480p like out of a dvd player).
Yeah they have amazing, almost unnecessary resolution for a 3.5" screen. Great for text readability, but so is SAMOLED
So anyways, if a 960x640 (apple) device is actually defaulting to scaling 720p down, theyre actually shooting themselves in the foot... unless their scaler is a faroudja... but with iOS its all about status, so having that little indicator on the screen say HD, even though the device falls a bit short of actually delivering, and degrading the image by scaling when it is not necessary on such a small device (any phone), it just makes us look better . Wow, im used to having these discussions relating to CRT projectors, not phones So yeah, stick to native resolution or smaller.
That said, if our TV out option worked, then 720p or whatever the best output is would be a good default, if that option were plugged in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regardless of the quality the iphone degrades, it still looks better...that's what he meant lol so if it looks better with a scaled down 720p, imagine regular 720p
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

I am not talking about the resolution of the screen. I realize the iphone/ipod have higher res than our phones, and that relates to the sharpness. But I am talking about the actual content quality is actually much higher definition, as it takes longer to buffer because of this aswell. I know the Android app is better overall vs IOS version.
I watch alot of HD [HQ on our phones] of car videos and such, and yes it bothers me that it is not the best it can.
Not anything worth whining about Would be cool if we had [3g/mobile] [HQ] and [HD] options.
This is XDA, maybe we can hack it lol
*Thanks for all the replies by the way

Duh, been too long since I dealt with SD... you are correct.
But as far as 'looks good', its subjective, and looking at my friends touch, I really dont think video is even close... text is awesome... but theres too many factors, such as were you using youtube apps, or the actual site? Really though, I guess it boils down that you really prefer resolution over color, clarity, etc of the samoleds.... But everyone has their preference, I still prefer my Barco 808s projector running 720p CRT at 120" over most 1080p TVs... But to be fair most TVs are crap...

hayabusa1300cc said:
I am not talking about the resolution of the screen. I realize the iphone/ipod have higher res than our phones, and that relates to the sharpness. But I am talking about the actual content quality is actually much higher definition, as it takes longer to buffer because of this aswell. I know the Android app is better overall vs IOS version.
I watch alot of HD [HQ on our phones] of car videos and such, and yes it bothers me that it is not the best it can.
Not anything worth whining about Would be cool if we had [3g/mobile] [HQ] and [HD] options.
This is XDA, maybe we can hack it lol
*Thanks for all the replies by the way
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I noticed that too,compared even to my old iphone 3gs I just watch youtube videos using Dolphin Hd browser with AdobeAir flash installed,quality is definetly better than on YouTube app.

What I'm more concerned with now is actually watching a youtube video and not watching 3 seconds of it, it skipping, and then having to start over because it fails to load completely

The old youtube app was horrible and would always do that but the new one has been awesome so far.

Yea that's true, the new is way better for reliability lol
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

download a program called tubemate from the market. its free.
when you use this app, you browse it just like you would youtube , but when you watch a video you have 2 options. watch or download. when you watch it steams in poor quality, however if you download you can play it back in HD. its pretty cool. you can even download 720p ( on 4g its pretty quick)

XOOM vs Ipad 2 Video playback

Ipad 2:
Video formats supported: H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats; Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format
XOOM:
If you stick with H.264 Baseline Profile, you can achieve up to 1920x1080p at 30 fps at 20Mbps.
Baseline Profile means:
- No CABAC entropy coding.
- No B frames
- No 8x8 transforms (DCT)
- No Weighted Prediction
For 1280x720p at 30 fps, you can go up to 20Mbps and Motorola XOOM should still be able to handle it. More Realistically, depending on the content, you can get away with 4Mbps and up with varying degrees of quality. If you are tight on space, use 4Mbps. If you want something to look good you can use 10/12 Mbps. At some point though the higher the bitrate will only translate to decreasing amounts of quality improvement. In other words, 20Mbps will probably look as good as 15Mbps, but will just use up more space. Ultimately, there is really no one size fits all solution and it may take a little experimentation to find the settings that work best for the content you wish to view.
Additionally your device does not have a limitation on certain types of B frames (Main profile tool). So you can add in B frames and not affect performance that much. If you are using a encoding tool that uses B frames, such as QuickTime Pro, you should be able to achieve main profile encoding.
If you are using a lower resolution that 720p (such as 720x480 resolution size) in order to encode longer length video , you can get away with using more tools (High and Main profile tools). However, encoding become more complex and may require more experimentation to achieve acceptable results.
In general, if you are concern about performance, use baseline tools and possibly b-frames (with no weighted prediction). This will give you the best performance.
Also as side note, if you are upscaling from a DVD to 720p try to use the best upscaling algorithm provided and don't expect to get true 720p quality from upscaled DVD.
Looks like Xoom is a tad bit better in terms of supported Hardware video decode capabilities.
In terms of GPU - it seems that the Ipad 2 may have a bit of an edge with the new power VR 543 - though this is not official as there are no direct comparisons yet.

Well my Epic4g with the Powervr SGX540 plays back high profile 720p FLAWLESSLY. The iPad will be capable of much more than that with the newer chip. The video standards that they "support" are the ones that they use through itunes and in no way represent the highest possible encoding of video that will play back. The instant XBMC hits the iPad2, I expect at least 1080p main profile to work since 1080p high profile ALMOST works on the iPad1.

muyoso said:
Well my Epic4g with the Powervr SGX540 plays back high profile 720p FLAWLESSLY. The iPad will be capable of much more than that with the newer chip. The video standards that they "support" are the ones that they use through itunes and in no way represent the highest possible encoding of video that will play back. The instant XBMC hits the iPad2, I expect at least 1080p main profile to work since 1080p high profile ALMOST works on the iPad1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's that you say, the iPad can output 1080p? Well sort of. The iPad can mirror its 1024x768 display in 1080p but it still won't decode 1080p H.264 videos, and we don't know what type of TV you have, but we'd bet ours does a little bit better job of scaling than the magical iPad. All that being said, the iPad 2's new form factor will increase its desirability as a couch companion --not to mention we'll buy anything with magnets -- but an HD source device, not so much.
That's from engadget
http://hd.engadget.com/2011/03/02/the-ipad-2-and-1080p-theres-nothing-to-see-here/

There are a lot of threads about xoom video limitations.
Am I the only person who just copied dvd rips from my iTunes folder straight to the xoom, and watch them with zero issues?
Maybe my handbrake settings arent top-notch, but the quality/size trade off worked fine on my old I pad, and work fine for the xoom. If I wanted full crazy HD, i'd watch from the blu-ray disk directly, on a TV that does it justice.
Am I crazy?
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App

It won't do it officially. Once it its jailbroken though it will have xbmc and will have ridiculous capabilities. For example the current ipad can play 720p high profile with xbmc now.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

Bauxite said:
Because the specs page for the iPad 2 lists SO many more formats.... stop trolling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What the specs page lists for the iPad 2 is irrelevant. Here my iPad1 playing a 720p [email protected] h.264 mkv file:
http://vimeo.com/20636064
Pretty sure the iPad never had that listed on its specs page. For a comparison, here is the Notion Ink and the Xoom playing back that exact same clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXWu6m33EP0&feature=player_detailpage#t=231s

muyoso said:
What the specs page lists for the iPad 2 is irrelevant. Here my iPad1 playing a 720p [email protected] h.264 mkv file:
http://vimeo.com/20636064
Pretty sure the iPad never had that listed on its specs page.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How long did it take from the MOMENT the iPad was released to when that became supported by some app?
People act like just because there are no apps RIGHT NOW for the xoom to play additional formats that there never ever will be.

Bauxite said:
How long did it take from the MOMENT the iPad was released to when that became supported by some app?
People act like just because there are no apps RIGHT NOW for the xoom to play additional formats that there never ever will be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It took a while for XBMC to be ported, 9 months or so. Dont know if they were working on it that entire time. The reason people act like that BTW is because the Tegra 2 is incapable of hardware decoding [email protected] or higher. Here is the guy who ported XBMC to the iPad and AppleTV and who was tasked with porting to Tegra 2 devices talking about it:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showpost.php?p=735285&postcount=41
Believe me, I wish that were not the case. Wants me some Xoom or Galaxy Tab 10.1 action.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing difference I seem to see from baseline and high profile h.264 is compression. My Xoom is fully capable of displaying the converted 720p mkvs with no chop/stutter in widescreen format on its screen. I've yet to test out hdmi out to my TV though.
Unless you want to talk about bitrate, but I can hardly tell the difference in quality loss vs source on something that I downloaded off the internet.

iceytea said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing difference I seem to see from baseline and high profile h.264 is compression. My Xoom is fully capable of displaying the converted 720p mkvs with no chop/stutter in widescreen format on its screen. I've yet to test out hdmi out to my TV though.
Unless you want to talk about bitrate, but I can hardly tell the difference in quality loss vs source on something that I downloaded off the internet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh there is no doubt that you can convert the video to play back perfectly on the Xoom. That isn't in question. I personally just think its ridiculous to have to.
Good read on the differences here, especially on page 3:
http://www.polycom.com/global/documents/whitepapers/h264_high_profile_wp.pdf
Warning, above is a direct link to a pdf.

Thanks for the read, I skimmed it and it pretty much sums up as higher compression without visual quality loss. I never put it together that the development of high profile was used for bandwidth savings though, interesting.

muyoso said:
Oh there is no doubt that you can convert the video to play back perfectly on the Xoom. That isn't in question. I personally just think its ridiculous to have to.
Good read on the differences here, especially on page 3:
http://www.polycom.com/global/documents/whitepapers/h264_high_profile_wp.pdf
Warning, above is a direct link to a pdf.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your posts, and yes, I COMPLETELY AGREE with you! Once I began my due diligence today comparing the iPad 1, iPad 2, and the Xoom I thought to see if high profile h.264 was supported.
I was shocked to find out that the Tegra 2's hw (and Nvidia has confirmed this) does not support high profile h.264. BUT.... the iPad 1 does?! It's ridiculous quite frankly, and in my eyes, Tegra 2 is partial failure because of it.
Anyway, iPad 1 handles that Planet Earth clip (i.e. the de facto pseudo h.264 720p/1080p benchmark for years it seems!) beautifully. How's the batter life when watching h.264? How long can you get? Also, I would think the iPad 2 is capable of 1080p high profile yes?
In any event, I won't be buying a zoom. For the steeper price point, that is just insulting. I'm gonna try to find one of the remnant ipad 1s from Verizon that have been creeping around for ~$300, however unlikely at that price point it may be to find!
Kudos to your efforts and exposing this massive fault in the Xoom. I have NEVER been a fan of reconversion of the years, from divx in its earliest days through xvid (when apple ironically pushed 'reconversion' into mainstream)... glad that w/ this bad boy that won't be necessary as I'd never do it, too much hassle and insulting, imho.

Not being able to play 720p videos is the main reason I returned the xoom. If I am forced to convert videos I might as well do it for the ipad.

I am so tempted to sell my xoom because of this video playback issue...
I have a lot of bluray rips and I cant watch them on the xoom.
They were encoded using the Apple TV2 preset in handbrake, which I'm guessing is high profile

Oh wow, if this is that serious most of the Honeycomb tablets will be losing quite a lot of sells. I hope Samsung doesn't use the Tegra in their tabs. I'm fine with their Exynos, assuming it has the amazing codec support their Hummingbird does.

Its not the chip ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html ) supports 1080p h264 just fine. As it stands right now, best I have been able to gather, it is a software/firmware (likely drivers) issue causing the poor playback.

pjcforpres said:
Its not the chip ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html ) supports 1080p h264 just fine. As it stands right now, best I have been able to gather, it is a software/firmware (likely drivers) issue causing the poor playback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would seem to make since, but I believe in Google...A phrase I never thought I would be saying ever lol.

Sorry. But there isn't much doubt at this time that it IS in fact the "chip"
There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of articles at this point citing the same thing: Tegra 2 CANNOT DECODE HIGH PROFILE VIDEO.
Period.
If you need me to cite about 50 different sources, I would be happy to do so.

Digital Man said:
Sorry. But there isn't much doubt at this time that it IS in fact the "chip"
There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of articles at this point citing the same thing: Tegra 2 CANNOT DECODE HIGH PROFILE VIDEO.
Period.
If you need me to cite about 50 different sources, I would be happy to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, no, I'll take your word for it. I guess some of us were hoping that it was just a honeycomb issue that would be fixed with an update.

pjcforpres said:
Its not the chip ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-2.html ) supports 1080p h264 just fine. As it stands right now, best I have been able to gather, it is a software/firmware (likely drivers) issue causing the poor playback.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Xoom can play baseline 1080p h.264. The Xoom cannot play 720p high profile h.264. I would venture to guess that 90% of all video that people have that they didn't videotape themselves is high profile h.264 with 9.99% of the remainder being main profile h.264.
hakujin said:
Anyway, iPad 1 handles that Planet Earth clip (i.e. the de facto pseudo h.264 720p/1080p benchmark for years it seems!) beautifully. How's the batter life when watching h.264? How long can you get? Also, I would think the iPad 2 is capable of 1080p high profile yes?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPad 1 handles the Planet Earth clip perfectly, but do realize that it is a jailbroken iPad with XBMC installed. The iPad does not natively support high profile h.264 even though the hardware is capable, because Apple wants you to buy media through iTunes.
The iPad 2 SHOULD be capable of 1080p high profile, but we won't know for sure until it too is jailbroken and XBMC is installed/optimized.

HTC HD2 outperforms Atrix Software Decode

Wrong section..
Sent from my CM7 Atrix+ 4G using the XDA Premium App

sure someone cancel and close this thread please. Or just move it to GENERAL.

HD2 wins
Yeah,
I have an atrix and an HD2 with nexus s rom on it. I found the HD2 better in anyways than the atrix, the hd2 is very very smoot compared to the atrix.........
maybe motorola did not a good job in software optimization.....
I have last official rom

It requires more power because your running it at a higher resolution...

I have both the phones
Sent from my unlocked rooted and 2.3.4 Atrix using tapatalk

installed cm7 and eternityproject kernel for 1100mhz. Same result. Couldn't maintain stable playback until 912Mhz. I'll reconvert the video into a universal 720x480 one at a 16:9 pan and scan and the other at a 5:3 pan and scan. I may even do a universal standard video to just compare the two devices.

you need to take into account the fact that the atrix is also driving a larger screen regardless of the video resolution. this is like comparing an orange to a fork.

1chris89 said:
installed cm7 and eternityproject kernel for 1100mhz. Same result. Couldn't maintain stable playback until 912Mhz. I'll reconvert the video into a universal 720x480 one at a 16:9 pan and scan and the other at a 5:3 pan and scan. I may even do a universal standard video to just compare the two devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since when could you run cm7 with kholks kernel?
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App

neer2005 said:
Since when could you run cm7 with kholks kernel?
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One cannot use Kholk's Kernel and CM7 together. This is correct.
He seems slightly like he is trolling as well.

This comparison really matters because most people under clock their phones when watching videos, amirite?
---
- adb push iPad2post.apk to /forum/thread

TheBassman369 said:
This comparison really matters because most people under clock their phones when watching videos, amirite?
---
- adb push iPad2post.apk to /forum/thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No no, his point is valid. If the other device can play the same video at 652mhz and our at 912mhz, ours drains more battery while doing the same thing.
He still hasn't actually proven this anyways.

diedemus said:
you need to take into account the fact that the atrix is also driving a larger screen regardless of the video resolution. this is like comparing an orange to a fork.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i loled
.

nexxusty said:
One cannot use Kholk's Kernel and CM7 together. This is correct.
He seems slightly like he is trolling as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 troll.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App

I'd like to point that the player used in op's test is not mentioned. As i posted in the best video player thread, i tried all video players mentioned in there and NONE was able to play correctly 2-3 test videos i tried, except for one, dice player. Plays 720p FLAWLESSLY! No choppiness, no out of sync, nothing. I am realy amazed! Please do try it and report back. It's a paid app, but has a 3day trial version. The player you use makes a huge difference. As if developers don't yet know how to take full advantage of tegra's capabilities in playing videos? Anyway, my new player, DICE!
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App

Op said he used vital player pro.
Mx video player performs pretty well on everything I've thrown at it so far and its free
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App

diedemus said:
Op said he used vital player pro.
Mx video player performs pretty well on everything I've thrown at it so far and its free
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm you're right i missed that, guess too eager to reply. But i insist on testing with dice. Mx is no match trust me plus it pixelizes a bit my videos and ruins the quality.
Wow i just tried vital and it reaaly struggles to keep sync, hopeless to say the least.

diedemus said:
you need to take into account the fact that the atrix is also driving a larger screen regardless of the video resolution. this is like comparing an orange to a fork.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well fork the orange and see what kind of pulp you get (maybe a new ROM?)

Vital player pro is by far the best player I have used. It plays almost every format. Unlike other players. Anyway, using hardware decode on both devices you can run the bare minimum frequency and run flawlessly. However under software decode it uses raw cpu power and not the gpu ie (adreno on the hd2 and the nvidia tegra 2 on the atrix). I encoded a fresh new movie using AVC h264 mp4 video at a 2,000kbps video bitrate, 720x480 with an auto aspect ratio letterbox at 23.97fps, AAC audio at 48,000khz and 128kbps. I ran the tests of both devices and the results were very interesting! The htc hd2 was able to software decode with no problem at an astounding 537Mhz! Anything lower resulted in terrible audio sync issues and stuttering. I then ran the test on the atrix with very interesting results as well! The atrix was unable to decode stutter free at anything below 912Mhz!!! I suppose it comes down to the cpu not being designed to efficiently decode video in single threaded applications or software decode in general. However in combination with the devastating gpu power, all hell breaks lose and it would blow the doors of an hd2 in a balls to the wall full hardware comparison. However the atrix performs poorly in a single threaded application using software decoding. The hd2 is a beast when it comes to software decoding with it's beastly single thread. Just for your information both devices are able to decode the video in hardware mode at there minimum allowable frequencies perfectly. What I honestly suspect being the culprit is the fact that the kernel has not been perfected and it still highly based off of motoral's kernel with minor modifications. Once a fresh kernel is built from scratch and perfected for at least 6 months of release builds, then we will see the atrix outperforming the hd2 under this type of test. I believe Motorola intended people to rely on hardware decoding which is ideal since the cpu power doesn't really matter.
Hope you guy's like the tests.
Later
Atrix on a honeycomb blur rom w/ faux123 kernel (atrix cm7 rom had no effect on this test)
HD2 on a cm7 rom with rafpigna's 2.0 kernel

Database Users

welcome