Video Editing


craigix said:
I also have a similar opinion of how slow Firefox is. Seriously, we can emulate the N64 on the Pandora but Firefox sucks just as much power to BROWSE THE WEB - something I could do back in 1995 on ancient technology. What a bloated mess it must be.

While there are a lot of features in FF that probably sucks up power the problem is that modern websites are not as easy and quick to render as the old ones was. In this case I'm happy that we don't have Flash support because Flash is very power hungry, makes my laptop crawl and overheat. FF is faster then IE but slower then Safari IIRC, Chrome is much faster then FF though. Only reason I use FF is because it's the one that has the best CCS support. I would probably use Chrome on my Pandora if we can get it and it supports instant spell check like FF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
oh wow, quite a response from you guys. really a dedicated community. i appreciate everything and to answer some questions, i just wanted to know to capabilities/limits of the pandora as far as video editing is concerned. if i could get crazy good video editing with life-like effects and what not, that would be great, but if all i get is copy and paste two segments of video together, i can work with that too. i'm a comedian, and do videos on youtube, and it would be the absolute best for me if i could do everything with my pandora, seeing as it can already do everything else :p. also, i know there are some good coders out there looking for a challenge, maybe this is it?

:-D
thanks again
 
joce said:
if i could get crazy good video editing with life-like effects and what not, that would be great
Effects, eh? Come to think of it, Blender probably has video editing buried in its zillions of functions, and it can raytrace or OpenGL rasterize effects at the same time. I don't know how it handles encoding, though. I haven't done any video editing in eons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grench said:
craigix said:
I also have a similar opinion of how slow Firefox is. Seriously, we can emulate the N64 on the Pandora but Firefox sucks just as much power to BROWSE THE WEB - something I could do back in 1995 on ancient technology.
I thought that the OpenPandora was supposed to have Firefox running fairly well... What browser do you suggest we use on the OpenPandora then?

[/quote]

It does run well, it just needs 500-600mhz and a whole load of RAM. I just can't get my head around why it requires so much ram and cpu speed. What is it doing with it all? It is frustrating because I know it should not be like that, there must just be some very lazy programming inside it, or it is simply made by people who want to meet some absurd programming standards which result in degraded performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
craigix said:
It does run well, it just needs 500-600mhz and a whole load of RAM. I just can't get my head around why it requires so much ram and cpu speed. What is it doing with it all? It is frustrating because I know it should not be like that, there must just be some very lazy programming inside it, or it is simply made by people who want to meet some absurd programming standards which result in degraded performance.

I think that those new web technologies have something with this slowness. You know, all those XML, CSS, HTML4, HTML5, scripts and so. Widely accessible broadband internet which carriers GB data in moment. Bloated webpages, big images, flashlight "lightened" by Flash.

If browser reach only some HTML 3.2 standard, no CSS and rarely used basic scripts, no tabs, no plugins, no XUL platform... Yeah, linx/links browsers rules!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
craigix said:
It does run well, it just needs 500-600mhz and a whole load of RAM. I just can't get my head around why it requires so much ram and cpu speed. What is it doing with it all? It is frustrating because I know it should not be like that, there must just be some very lazy programming inside it, or it is simply made by people who want to meet some absurd programming standards which result in degraded performance.
You can browse much faster without activated plug-ins and without JavaScript. At least the pages load much faster, I had to use a 56K Modem untill the end of 2009 and I know that the browsing-speed is not only connected to the processor-speed. I would recommend Opera (it can run onto the NDS so it SHOULD run well onto the Pandora) but afaik it's not possible because no open Source.
I think we have to wait for Mozilla "Fennec", it sounds like this browser could be more suited for a Device like Pandora. I actualy wonder at all, how the Browser-Caching will work onto the Pandora, we know the writing is limited onto NAND and SD Cards ansd permanent Browser Caching, cookies etc... could kill the NAND and SD very quickly I think. And it's slow too. ^^"""""
Well, the Firefox is open Source AFAIK, maybe a talented coder spots the bottle necks and can optimize the browser much more for our needs. Sadly, Optimizing is not "in" anymore these days where PCs have GigaHertz and Gigs of RAM. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anecdote time: I've disabled ALL plugins, everything I can find; no flash, no video, no audio, I can't even download properly. My homepage is about:blank. It STILL needs 26 megs for just that one "page". It climbs rapidly as I go to different pages. google.ca brings it up to 32 megs. google.co.uk brings it up to 35. asdf.com brings it up to 37. Blackle.com and I'm up to 40. gp32x.de puts me to 43. xkcd.com and I'm at 48. Seriously? 5 megs to display a web page and a few 50k pictures?
The fact that it keeps using a little bit more memory for each page is disturbing enough (more so that it uses much more than the page actually contains), but that initial 26 megs scares me. I remember surfing the web on computers with 4 megs of RAM. Why does Firefox need 26 megs to display nothing? This isn't limited to Firefox, mind. Other browsers have this same surprisingly large overhead. I just don't understand it, really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firefox uses XUL, which I've seen blamed for a lot of its bulk. Right now 3.0 is using 200MB on my laptop with a couple of extensions and eight tabs open. 3.5 is supposed to be great with memory management compared to previous versions and even other browsers, though I haven't had a chance to test it because someone decided they wouldn't backport 3.5 to Ubuntu's current "Long Term Service release" and never told us about it. Just the other day I got an update in the queue for 3.0.17.


atomicthumbs said:
http://www.1010.co.uk/gneve.html
Well in that case I don't see why we don't just dump all this XFCE business and run straight Emacs! Of course, then we'd need a decent text editor...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm interested in trying out Iron. It seems like it's basically Chromium with the Google parts taken out.
 
WizardStan said:
Anecdote time: I've disabled ALL plugins, everything I can find; no flash, no video, no audio, I can't even download properly. My homepage is about:blank. It STILL needs 26 megs for just that one "page". It climbs rapidly as I go to different pages. google.ca brings it up to 32 megs. google.co.uk brings it up to 35. asdf.com brings it up to 37. Blackle.com and I'm up to 40. gp32x.de puts me to 43. xkcd.com and I'm at 48. Seriously? 5 megs to display a web page and a few 50k pictures?
Although those pictures are only 50K when you download them, they are a lot bigger when they are uncompressed. And that's how they are stored in memory.

The fact that it keeps using a little bit more memory for each page is disturbing enough
No, that's normal. Firefox caches seen websites if you have enough RAM. If your computer had only 32 MB RAM it wouldn't do it. See: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html

I remember surfing the web on computers with 4 megs of RAM.
The web has changed a lot (AJAX and stuff).

Why does Firefox need 26 megs to display nothing?
The stuff needed to display a website (e.g. the Javascript JIT compiler, CSS parser, ...) are already loaded into memory, ready to get some input ;) .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan-Nik said:
WizardStan said:
Anecdote time: I've disabled ALL plugins, everything I can find; no flash, no video, no audio, I can't even download properly. My homepage is about:blank. It STILL needs 26 megs for just that one "page". It climbs rapidly as I go to different pages. google.ca brings it up to 32 megs. google.co.uk brings it up to 35. asdf.com brings it up to 37. Blackle.com and I'm up to 40. gp32x.de puts me to 43. xkcd.com and I'm at 48. Seriously? 5 megs to display a web page and a few 50k pictures?
Although those pictures are only 50K when you download them, they are a lot bigger when they are uncompressed. And that's how they are stored in memory.

The fact that it keeps using a little bit more memory for each page is disturbing enough
No, that's normal. Firefox caches seen websites if you have enough RAM. If your computer had only 32 MB RAM it wouldn't do it. See: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
That's my point, though. It decompresses the images, builds the web page in memory, and caches it. A week later, Firefox is using over a gig of memory (I have 4) with cached web pages that I'll never visit again and there's no way to disable it, believe me, I've tried all the suggestions. Building the web page and decompressing images isn't a bottleneck, so why decompress and store 5 megs of data when it can just store the 200 and rebuild it as needed? Especially when I'm not likely to ever need it. Suddenly my cache drops from 1 gig to 40 megs (or more realistically, one or two hundred)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Attention application developers: The OS you're developing for has it's own god damn caching system. Save whatever long-term, rarely used crap you have to a temporary folder on persistent storage. If the OS deems it viable, it will cache it and you won't have to reinvent the wheel.
 
WizardStan said:
That's my point, though. It decompresses the images, builds the web page in memory, and caches it. A week later, Firefox is using over a gig of memory (I have 4) with cached web pages
A week later Firefox wont use a gig of memory because you have most likely restarted it in this time which results in the memory to be released. Also one gigabyte of cached web pages is very unlikely since it is only caching 8 pages.

there's no way to disable it, believe me, I've tried all the suggestions.
Have you tried setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to 0?

zhasha said:
Attention application developers: The OS you're developing for has it's own god damn caching system. Save whatever long-term, rarely used crap you have to a temporary folder on persistent storage. If the OS deems it viable, it will cache it and you won't have to reinvent the wheel.
What caching system is there in Windows? And how does it decide if a web site should be cached?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zhasha said:
Attention application developers: The OS you're developing for has it's own god damn caching system. Save whatever long-term, rarely used crap you have to a temporary folder on persistent storage. If the OS deems it viable, it will cache it and you won't have to reinvent the wheel.
People once thought I was crazy for saving a config file every time a setting changed. I really wish they all knew that it doesn't matter whether you do that or not.

From "panorama/src/configuration.cpp", line 10:
Code:
    connect(_hive, SIGNAL(settingChanged(QString,QString,QString,ChangeSource)),
            this, SLOT(saveFile()));
It MIGHT lead to issues if you have settings that e.g. are controlled by one of those number spin boxes (screenshot) that are linked to a setting, but who cares.

BTW, @Jan-Nik: AJAX barely uses any extra RAM at all; *images* (and Flash etc) are still the black holes of the web.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be nice if on embedded platforms, browsers could just store the images compressed in memory, then uncompress them as needed. A fun thing to do: Set Opera's memory cache to unlimited and visit youtube for a bit. :p
 
Jan-Nik said:
zhasha said:
Attention application developers: The OS you're developing for has it's own god damn caching system. Save whatever long-term, rarely used crap you have to a temporary folder on persistent storage. If the OS deems it viable, it will cache it and you won't have to reinvent the wheel.
What caching system is there in Windows? And how does it decide if a web site should be cached?
Remember how people wrongly attributed the extreme RAM usage of Vista to caching? That cache system. The naïve OS will decide what to put in memory based on what's used the most. linux will usually keep around 40-60MB of RAM free at all time and the rest will be used to cache often used files. What goes into the cache should ultimately be decided by the OS in an effort to improve performance. When an app goes rogue and decides to cache its own crap, guess what, the OS can't free it when it finds itself with a shortage of RAM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MarkoeZ said:
First of all welcome!

And yes it probably will. But how usefull it is depends on what you are going to edit and how long you are willing to wait for compression. Full length movie edits: not likely or not funny. editing/mixing small clips: highly likely. But if you are planning on using processor heavy filters/effects, remember that the processor operates at 500/600 Mhz. (overclockable to up to 900 Mhz.) so probably no.

Just realised i have no idea about any good linux movie editors, only have experience with windows/mac in that area. But same principles should apply.
I've never found a good free video editor. All of them have caveats that make them pretty much useless.

Care to impart your insights into Windows and OSX software? I've heard good things about Final Cut Express.

Mofokubik said:
Kind of funny you should mention that. I read somewhere that the makers of VLC are making a video editor. It's called "VLMC" IIRC. If it's anything like vlc it'll be open sourced, right?
I heard that too - but the project is still in pre-alpha.

WizardStan said:
OpenShot is currently my favourite open source video editor. It's fairly new, but quickly becoming very powerful. I see no reason it can't be ported to and used effectively on the Pandora.
Now that is what I was looking for!

I might have to try it out in an Ubuntu VM, since there's no Windows version.

craigix said:
Video editing has become weirdly slow recently, and I don't understand why.

I used to edit videos on my DX4/100mhz PC with 640*480 videos. The software I used was pretty quick, generating the movie took a while but not too long.

I've recently used PC software which took almost exactly the same time on a 2ghz machine. That is disgraceful. Until very recently I was still using the old software on a 400mhz Pentium with Win98 because of that, now I use a Mac.

I also have a similar opinion of how slow Firefox is. Seriously, we can emulate the N64 on the Pandora but Firefox sucks just as much power to BROWSE THE WEB - something I could do back in 1995 on ancient technology. What a bloated mess it must be.

At least due to all these phones browsing the net we are seeing some pushes to optimisation and not a moment too soon.
There's a couple reasons. First one is the codecs. Codecs are using more and more processing power - so while older codecs literally use 1% CPU to decode(letting you decode/encode/navigate dozens of seconds of video in no time at all, assuming you have enough disk IO), the newer codecs hit your CPU much harder. H.264 footage might use 10% cpu per second. If you want to navigate 15 seconds into the future, and there's no I frames nearby (I think that's the type...), then it has to decode all the video up to that point. Expect a 1.5 second jolt.

New GUIs tend to be written in scripting languages to cut dev time, reduce bugs, and improve tweakability. This makes them use more CPU. Most video editing software now has full realtime overlays too, so that's another CPU-hitting feature. Maybe even post-processed previews while editing.

This should all add up to quicker and more powerful editing, if your hardware can hold up.

Lately I've been editing in H.264/mp3. (not as a job - just a hobby, to learn) I've found that tweaking all the settings like CABAC/BIP frames, etc., really enhances editor responsiveness. With all the advanced settings disabled and the bitrate set high(20-30mbit), the picture quality is almost lossless, and there's none of that nasty waiting. The only problem is most of the free editors have caveats like failing to sync audio/video, crashing, etc. when the settings are tweaked in this way.

The reason software like Firefox is getting slower is because of feature creep - but to be frank, it isn't getting slower overall. I have an old Athlon XP with FF 1.5 and FF 3.5 on it. FF 3.5 is faster, and has more powerful addons and a more responsive GUI. It's just being optimized slower than most other software.

craigix said:
It does run well, it just needs 500-600mhz and a whole load of RAM. I just can't get my head around why it requires so much ram and cpu speed. What is it doing with it all? It is frustrating because I know it should not be like that, there must just be some very lazy programming inside it, or it is simply made by people who want to meet some absurd programming standards which result in degraded performance.
People complain when websites are broken. Firefox has very good compatibility now...

Did you ever see that switch statement mess for handling dates? It was crazy - about 200 lines of embedded switch statements to handle all the different types of dates people use.

WizardStan said:
The fact that it keeps using a little bit more memory for each page is disturbing enough (more so that it uses much more than the page actually contains), but that initial 26 megs scares me. I remember surfing the web on computers with 4 megs of RAM. Why does Firefox need 26 megs to display nothing? This isn't limited to Firefox, mind. Other browsers have this same surprisingly large overhead. I just don't understand it, really.

Perfect backwards compatibility.

People complain if older sites don't work anymore, and then they find another browser that does work.

The browser is the ultimate program for feature creep - and unlike other software, it's a mandated requirement by the user.

Wheels said:
Firefox uses XUL, which I've seen blamed for a lot of its bulk. Right now 3.0 is using 200MB on my laptop with a couple of extensions and eight tabs open. 3.5 is supposed to be great with memory management compared to previous versions and even other browsers, though I haven't had a chance to test it because someone decided they wouldn't backport 3.5 to Ubuntu's current "Long Term Service release" and never told us about it. Just the other day I got an update in the queue for 3.0.17.

Just use Ubuntu Tweak to enable the 3.5 betas. They're more stable, and easily 2x faster. I have a Via C7 box (NAS) which I sometimes VNC into. 3.5 feels about 3x faster on it.

WizardStan said:
That's my point, though. It decompresses the images, builds the web page in memory, and caches it. A week later, Firefox is using over a gig of memory (I have 4) with cached web pages that I'll never visit again and there's no way to disable it, believe me, I've tried all the suggestions. Building the web page and decompressing images isn't a bottleneck, so why decompress and store 5 megs of data when it can just store the 200 and rebuild it as needed? Especially when I'm not likely to ever need it. Suddenly my cache drops from 1 gig to 40 megs (or more realistically, one or two hundred)

You can restart your browser to clear it. There are extensions that will automatically store everything you're doing, if that's what you need...

But really, my computer has so much RAM that I usually keep Firefox open all the time. It's not uncommon for me to be playing a game with Firefox open in the background, a Java IDE, and videos encoding as well.

dflemstr said:
BTW, @Jan-Nik: AJAX barely uses any extra RAM at all; *images* (and Flash etc) are still the black holes of the web.
Absolutely correct.

zhasha said:
Remember how people wrongly attributed the extreme RAM usage of Vista to caching? That cache system. The naïve OS will decide what to put in memory based on what's used the most. linux will usually keep around 40-60MB of RAM free at all time and the rest will be used to cache often used files. What goes into the cache should ultimately be decided by the OS in an effort to improve performance. When an app goes rogue and decides to cache its own crap, guess what, the OS can't free it when it finds itself with a shortage of RAM.
Ultimately this leads to reduced performance.

Okay, so rather than Defrag using 50MB, now it uses 1400MB, to boost performance by 25%.

Too bad Firefox ran out of memory and now runs 15x slower.

And the game I'm playing now slows to a crawl too - 60fps dropping to 15-20fps. ;)

The fastest OS's are ones where every program strives to be minimal, because even though nothing is as optimized, it works consistently in every usage scenario.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jan-Nik said:
A week later Firefox wont use a gig of memory because you have most likely restarted it in this time which results in the memory to be released. Also one gigabyte of cached web pages is very unlikely since it is only caching 8 pages.
I used to go months of uptime. Firefox would crash (thus eliminating the cache anyway) before I'd feel the need to reboot. I shouldn't have to close an application every so often for it to keep functioning, but with Firefox I do. If it's not shut down and restarted every so often, memory usage continued to climb. Never had it go much beyond a gig before it would crash, so I don't know how high it would have gone if it had been able to.
Incidentally, I have bug reports in for both the huge memory usage and the random crashes when memory usage gets high. The huge memory usage was pushed around and eventually ignored as "a problem with flash" even after I said that I don't have the flash plugin installed. I'm pretty sure it's been closed by now, unresolved. The random crash one hasn't really been investigated. It was updated by someone recently, but all they did was add a tag to it. I've taken to shutting down my computer at night now, so I only hit about 300 megs or so.

Jan-Nik said:
there's no way to disable it, believe me, I've tried all the suggestions.
Have you tried setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to 0?
Probably. I believe a half dozen different suggestions were presented in the past couple years, and not a single one of them ever really helped. I'll try it though, in the interest of science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top