 |
 |
|
|
Philips Pronto Professional Forum - View Post
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:
|
Processor performance TSU9200/9600/9600
| |
|
| Topic: | Processor performance TSU9200/9600/9600 This thread has 12 replies. Displaying all posts. |
|
| Post 1 made on Saturday February 7, 2009 at 20:02 |
blang2006 Long Time Member |
|
|
Has anybody knowledge about the processor/"video" performance of these remotes?
If I want to display "live TV" it is only possible to give 1-2 pictures/sec.
TSU9600 is only allowing with this frames per second a resolution of 320x240; otherwise grey screen.
Is TSU9800 having a faster processor?
Thank you in advance
|
|
| Post 2 made on Sunday February 8, 2009 at 00:06 |
gopronto Senior Member |
Joined:
Posts: | April 2008
1,453 |
|
|
There are not many differances between the 9600 and the 9800, my best geuss is that they have the same processor.. there my be an up date to the firmware some time to make the video images a little faster..
|
Pronto still one of the best Wi-Fi Remotes, www.ikonavs.co.nz and [Link: axiumcontrol.com] Axium Control |
|
| Post 3 made on Sunday February 8, 2009 at 15:30 |
thoupis Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2007
124 |
|
|
The 9200 does not support image streaming
|
|
| Post 4 made on Sunday February 8, 2009 at 21:05 |
Lyndel McGee RC Moderator |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
12,997 |
|
|
The TSU9300 will support it via ProntoScript, but not the TSU9200.
|
Lyndel McGee
Philips Pronto Addict/Beta Tester
|
|
| Post 5 made on Sunday February 8, 2009 at 21:16 |
Peter Dewildt Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | July 2001
6,307 |
|
|
It is claimed that the 9300 does not do ProntoScript.
|
Peter
Pronto 1000 (retired), Pronto TSU7000, RFX6000 (retired)
Pronto 2xTSU9600, RFX9400 |
|
| Post 6 made on Sunday February 8, 2009 at 21:17 |
gopronto Senior Member |
Joined:
Posts: | April 2008
1,453 |
|
|
|
| OP | Post 7 made on Monday February 9, 2009 at 09:18 |
blang2006 Long Time Member |
|
|
The important feature difference is obviously not the processor.
This means TSU9800 is not having a better frame rate.
I can´t believe the limitation are caused by the firmware. If yes, it would be nice if next upgrade is solving this. Today the processor is cheap and shouldn´t be the reason for limitation either.
I´missing: Processor? / graphic performance for image streaming
WPA2 (planed for this year)
TSU9600: scroll wheel (like TSU9400); next genration comming; this year
WIFI N standard (300Mbit)
sound streaming, mono is ok
|
|
| Post 8 made on Monday February 9, 2009 at 18:20 |
Peter Dewildt Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | July 2001
6,307 |
|
|
The limitaion is not the processor or firmware. It is functionality. There is no support for loading video - just individual images. Converting video frame by frame to individual images then displaying consumes so much more processing power than processing video.
|
Peter
Pronto 1000 (retired), Pronto TSU7000, RFX6000 (retired)
Pronto 2xTSU9600, RFX9400 |
|
| Post 9 made on Monday February 9, 2009 at 18:44 |
Lyndel McGee RC Moderator |
Joined:
Posts: | August 2001
12,997 |
|
|
Peter is right. AAAARGH! I HAD A HUGE BRAIN FART.
The 9300 does not support ProntoScript but does support the WIFI-based extenders.
|
Lyndel McGee
Philips Pronto Addict/Beta Tester
|
|
| OP | Post 10 made on Monday February 9, 2009 at 19:34 |
blang2006 Long Time Member |
|
|
To Peter,
if displaying picture by picture is more consuming processor power it is a processor performance problem.
This should be solved by a stronger processor.
Target should be 640x480 with 6-8 pictures per second.
This is not only for "Live TV" use. Also if you want to disply a complexive makro with progressing bar it would be much nicer. A changing from page A to B could be programmed without jerking if you use 10 pictures for steps between. Because the price of the remotes are not falling Philips can buy the processors with better performance at same price like the old versions two years ago.
|
|
| Post 11 made on Monday February 9, 2009 at 23:10 |
Peter Dewildt Loyal Member |
Joined:
Posts: | July 2001
6,307 |
|
|
I doubt that your typical desktop processor could display more than a few frames per second if they were separate images. Try loading an HTML page with JPGs that are 640 x480 and see how many will display in a second. MPG video is what you want to be loading not separate images.
A progress bar is completely different as it is usually the one image being modified.
Similarly Adobe Flash video is also very simple.
|
Peter
Pronto 1000 (retired), Pronto TSU7000, RFX6000 (retired)
Pronto 2xTSU9600, RFX9400 |
|
| Post 12 made on Friday February 13, 2009 at 17:52 |
Pulse-R Long Time Member |
Joined:
Posts: | January 2009
10 |
|
|
my PC's browser does about 4 FPS maximum with 640x480.
Although not having a FPU really will hold back any video performance.
I think Xwindows can run on the pronto ?! once I get ftpd runnning.
|
DIY it the right way |
|
| OP | Post 13 made on Saturday February 14, 2009 at 04:40 |
blang2006 Long Time Member |
|
|
To Peter:
Yes, I understand. MPG video would be the best. But TSU9600 is not able to run MPG video; only single pictures are taken of this video stream. I´m not shure but I think this is limitation by Javascript. The only way I see for better "video" quality is to increase the resolution and/or FPS. Any progress is a help. Also 640x480 at 2 FPS, or 320x240 at 4FPS.
Is my knowledge correct or is there any other way for "video" improovement?
to Pulse-R:
Nice result. What processor, graphic card, operating system are you using?
|
|
 |
Before you can reply to a message... |
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now. |
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
