<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
NV12 is similar to I420 (or YUV420, if you prefer), so it is 12 bit
per pixel, 8 for luminance and 4 for CrCb (or U and V if you
prefer). See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fourcc.org/yuv.php#NV12">http://www.fourcc.org/yuv.php#NV12</a>.<br>
Obviously, "4 bits for CrCb" means that each byte is used for 4
pixels (a 2x2 quad), and so NV12 is a planar only format.<br>
<br>
So: 640 x 480 x 1,5 = 450 kBi = 3.51 Mbi uncompressed => 3.51 Mbi
/ 160 kbi = 22,5 times.<br>
<br>
I suggest to render the stream for the luminance plane only (like
old TV sets!!): if you get a good output, the problem is the way the
renderer works on the U and V plane.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Renato<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 04/01/2013 13.49,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:temp2010@forren.org">temp2010@forren.org</a> ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK0dNZjH2pw0=C-i42NP=y1PSmzazuqm_NkEbupw4cfNMGyiCA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Thanks very much for your help, Ross.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>BACKGROUND: (CLARIFICATION ONLY) Indeed I only have one
thread calling doEventLoop(). That's all I meant by my
penultimate background sentence. The last background sentence
points out a separate thread for MF, that's independent of
Live555, and is in fact the thread taking advantage of the one
exception within Live555: calling triggerEvent().</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FOLLOWUP QUESTION: Having incorporated your question one
answer, my output is better and now only "very poor" rather than
"horrible". My uncompressed stream is 640 x 480 x 30fps. It
passes through NV12 format, which when considered as YUV I think
has about 16 bits of info per pixel (8 bits for Y, 8 bits for
UV, like YUV422). So an uncompressed 640 x 480 frame should
have nearly 5Mbits of info. However, the compressed frames I'm
sending to Live555 are generally 160kbits each (after an initial
384kbit frame). I realize you're not responsible for MF, but
perhaps you can give your opinion, please. This suggests to me
that my MF H.264 encoder is compressing roughly 5Mbits/160kbits
= 31 times. Perhaps my remaining "very poor" quality is because
this is too much compression. I reconfigured the encoder for 10
times the average bit rate, but this typical 160kbits/frame
output size didn't really change. DO YOU AGREE that I ought to
be able to increase encoder output quality by increasing average
bit rate, and that the 160kbits per compressed frame should rise
toward 5Mbits?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks again.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
live-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:live-devel@lists.live555.com">live-devel@lists.live555.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.live555.com/mailman/listinfo/live-devel">http://lists.live555.com/mailman/listinfo/live-devel</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>