Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.homebuilt > #60555 > unrolled thread

Graphics Question

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.homebuilt

Contents

  Graphics Question "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-18 14:47 +0000
    Re: Graphics Question Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2026-05-18 18:02 +0100
      Re: Graphics Question "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-19 07:37 +0000
        Re: Graphics Question Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2026-05-21 10:55 +0100
          Re: Graphics Question "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-21 10:07 +0000
            Re: Graphics Question Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-21 11:55 +0100
              Re: Graphics Question "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-21 11:16 +0000
                Re: Graphics Question Abandoned Trolley <that.bloke@microsoft.com> - 2026-05-21 14:50 +0100
            Re: Graphics Question RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2026-05-21 15:18 +0000

#60555 — Graphics Question

I have an old family film, originally on Super 8 then converted to DVD via 
VHS so a mixed start in life.

I wanted to see if it could be enhanced so I downloaded and installed 
winxvideo-ai.exe. It took 36 hours to enhance it on my Gigabyte Z790 
(Intel UHD Graphic 770) and was unplayable.

I then dusted off an ASUS Z170-K PC, eBay purchase with a Specialist PC 
BIOS and Nvidia Quadro M4000  graphics card and tried again. Fine, 20 
minutes or so and it played OK. Not sure if it's much enhanced. However, 
it won't play on the Gigabyte.

I haven't bought an add on Graphic card for 20 years or so, is it possible 
that the video is so "enhanced" that Intel's built in graphics (or VLC) 
just can't handle it?

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60556

On 18/05/2026 15:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> .... is it possible that the video is so "enhanced" that Intel's built in 
> graphics (or VLC) just can't handle it?

The degree of enhancement (or otherwise) shouldn't have any implications 
for a video file's playability.

It's possible that the software that did the "enhancing" saved the 
result in a video format that your PC can't handle (i.e. doesn't have 
the right software to handle) ... fairly unusual for VLC not to be able 
to handle video, though.

What's the file format? What codec does it use? Have you tried 
re-converting it using a different codec or container format?

How up-to-date is your copy of VLC?

-- 
Cheers,
  Daniel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60557

On 18/05/2026 in message <10ufgnf$2l589$1@dont-email.me> Daniel James wrote:

>On 18/05/2026 15:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>.... is it possible that the video is so "enhanced" that Intel's built in  
>>graphics (or VLC) just can't handle it?
>
>The degree of enhancement (or otherwise) shouldn't have any implications 
>for a video file's playability.
>
>It's possible that the software that did the "enhancing" saved the result 
>in a video format that your PC can't handle (i.e. doesn't have the right 
>software to handle) ... fairly unusual for VLC not to be able to handle 
>video, though.
>
>What's the file format? What codec does it use? Have you tried 
>re-converting it using a different codec or container format?
>
>How up-to-date is your copy of VLC?

Hi Daniel, long time no hear :-)

The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became 1.2 MB.

It used the NVidia card for the rendering.

It runs in VLC on the PC it was rendered on but not in VLC on my main PC. 
Both copies of VLC say they are up to date.

I have never played with graphics or video, all the icons I produce for my 
programs look like stick insects :-)

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This mess is what happens when you elect a Labour government, in the end 
they will always run out of other people's money to spend.
(Margaret Thatcher on her election in 1979)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60565

On 19/05/2026 08:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became
> 1.2 MB.

MP4 is just a container. Different MP4 files can have the video inside 
them encoded in different ways.

Not confusing at all, eh?

> It used the NVidia card for the rendering.
> 
> It runs in VLC on the PC it was rendered on but not in VLC on my
> main PC. Both copies of VLC say they are up to date.

What happens if you encode the video again without using the nVidia 
card? It could be that the card is using a codec that it can decode but 
that the other PC doesn't have (I presume it doesn't have the same 
nVidia card).


-- 
Cheers,
  Daniel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60566

On 21/05/2026 in message <10umkqm$l4c8$1@dont-email.me> Daniel James wrote:

>On 19/05/2026 08:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became
>>1.2 MB.
>
>MP4 is just a container. Different MP4 files can have the video inside 
>them encoded in different ways.
>
>Not confusing at all, eh?
>
>>It used the NVidia card for the rendering.
>>
>>It runs in VLC on the PC it was rendered on but not in VLC on my
>>main PC. Both copies of VLC say they are up to date.
>
>What happens if you encode the video again without using the nVidia card? 
>It could be that the card is using a codec that it can decode but that the 
>other PC doesn't have (I presume it doesn't have the same nVidia card).

When I did that on my Gigabyte Z790 (most modern and fastest PC) it took 
36 hours to produce an unplayable video!

I think I will stick to the original and treat it as "historic" :-)

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There's 2 typos of peoples in this world.
Those who always notice spelling & grammatical errors, & them who doesn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60569

Jeff Gaines wrote:

>>> The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became
>>> 1.2 MB.
> 
> When I did that on my Gigabyte Z790 (most modern and fastest PC) it took 
> 36 hours to produce an unplayable video!
36 hours to upscale 102 kB of video?!?!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60570

On 21/05/2026 in message <n786krFo0udU2@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns 
wrote:

>Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>>>The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became
>>>>1.2 MB.
>>
>>When I did that on my Gigabyte Z790 (most modern and fastest PC) it took  
>>36 hours to produce an unplayable video!
>36 hours to upscale 102 kB of video?!?!

Yes! Don't think upscale is the expression I'd use though :-

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The first five days after the weekend are the hardest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60579

On 21/05/2026 12:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/05/2026 in message <n786krFo0udU2@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns 
> wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>>>> The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became
>>>>> 1.2 MB.
>>>
>>> When I did that on my Gigabyte Z790 (most modern and fastest PC) it 
>>> took 36 hours to produce an unplayable video!
>> 36 hours to upscale 102 kB of video?!?!
> 
> Yes! Don't think upscale is the expression I'd use though :-
> 


I would imagine that most set top satellite TV receivers must be able to 
do HDMI upscaling in real time ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60582

On 21 May 2026 at 11:07:59 BST, "Jeff Gaines" wrote:

> On 21/05/2026 in message <10umkqm$l4c8$1@dont-email.me> Daniel James wrote:
> 
>> On 19/05/2026 08:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> The original was an mp4 and it churned out a longer mp4, 102K became
>>> 1.2 MB.
>> 
>> MP4 is just a container. Different MP4 files can have the video inside
>> them encoded in different ways.
>> 
>> Not confusing at all, eh?
>> 
>>> It used the NVidia card for the rendering.
>>> 
>>> It runs in VLC on the PC it was rendered on but not in VLC on my
>>> main PC. Both copies of VLC say they are up to date.
>> 
>> What happens if you encode the video again without using the nVidia card?
>> It could be that the card is using a codec that it can decode but that the
>> other PC doesn't have (I presume it doesn't have the same nVidia card).
> 
> When I did that on my Gigabyte Z790 (most modern and fastest PC) it took
> 36 hours to produce an unplayable video!
> 
> I think I will stick to the original and treat it as "historic" :-)

That's nuts! My old (c.10 year) PC would transcode (using Handbrake, shrink
files while maintaining most of the quality) in pretty much real time. My
newish Mac Mini does it at 1000ish fps - 1/40th of the time. So a 2 hour film
5GB to 1GB in about 3 minutes.

Progress, I suppose . . .

-- 
Cheers, Rob
Sheffield, UK

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.homebuilt

csiph-web