Video playback?
 

Hey,

Not sure if that one should be in the GNOME spec, but totem 3.2 switched
to have only clutter-gst as a video playing backend (i.e no xv backend).

We probably don't want to switch video players in a lts cycle but not
sure if we should go with the new version (we staying on 3.0 which still
uses xv for Oneiric). Clutter-gst might introduce issues (vblank was
mentioning as a potential issue with compiz during this cycle when we
discussed it), not sure how much it got tested on i.e armel or how much
it could be an issue on some video drivers...

Should we go for the new version and deal with issues or stay safe with
the old version using xv, or look for a different video player to use?

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher



--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

On 4 October 2011 14:49, Sebastien Bacher <seb128@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> We probably don't want to switch video players in a lts cycle but not
> sure if we should go with the new version (we staying on 3.0 which still
> uses xv for Oneiric). Clutter-gst might introduce issues (vblank was
> mentioning as a potential issue with compiz during this cycle when we
> discussed it), not sure how much it got tested on i.e armel or how much
> it could be an issue on some video drivers...
>
> Should we go for the new version and deal with issues or stay safe with
> the old version using xv, or look for a different video player to use?

Banshee plays videos too. Banshee git just got DVD support so maybe we
can use one app for music & videos. Because it's new, DVDs probably
don't work as well in Banshee yet but maybe it'll be fine once it gets
more testing and use.

Jeremy

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:41:17AM EST, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 4 October 2011 14:49, Sebastien Bacher <seb128@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > We probably don't want to switch video players in a lts cycle but not
> > sure if we should go with the new version (we staying on 3.0 which still
> > uses xv for Oneiric). Clutter-gst might introduce issues (vblank was
> > mentioning as a potential issue with compiz during this cycle when we
> > discussed it), not sure how much it got tested on i.e armel or how much
> > it could be an issue on some video drivers...
> >
> > Should we go for the new version and deal with issues or stay safe with
> > the old version using xv, or look for a different video player to use?
>
> Banshee plays videos too. Banshee git just got DVD support so maybe we
> can use one app for music & videos. Because it's new, DVDs probably
> don't work as well in Banshee yet but maybe it'll be fine once it gets
> more testing and use.

I am of the opinion that we should allow users to play back video separate to their media library, should they choose to do so. This is possible on OS X with Quicktime Player and iTunes. I know if I want to look at a video thats not in my library or from a podcast, its much easier to find the video in Nautilus and open with totem.

Luke

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

On 05/10/11 10:07, Luke Yelavich wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:41:17AM EST, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> On 4 October 2011 14:49, Sebastien Bacher <seb128@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>> We probably don't want to switch video players in a lts cycle but not
>>> sure if we should go with the new version (we staying on 3.0 which still
>>> uses xv for Oneiric). Clutter-gst might introduce issues (vblank was
>>> mentioning as a potential issue with compiz during this cycle when we
>>> discussed it), not sure how much it got tested on i.e armel or how much
>>> it could be an issue on some video drivers...
>>>
>>> Should we go for the new version and deal with issues or stay safe with
>>> the old version using xv, or look for a different video player to use?
>> Banshee plays videos too. Banshee git just got DVD support so maybe we
>> can use one app for music & videos. Because it's new, DVDs probably
>> don't work as well in Banshee yet but maybe it'll be fine once it gets
>> more testing and use.
> I am of the opinion that we should allow users to play back video separate to their media library, should they choose to do so. This is possible on OS X with Quicktime Player and iTunes. I know if I want to look at a video thats not in my library or from a podcast, its much easier to find the video in Nautilus and open with totem.
>
> Luke
>
It would be a big saving in CD size and complexity to have one
audio/video playing application (like Banshee). As long as it can run
in a simple mode (much like Shotwell does for browsing photos) is can
cover both the "managed" and "ad-hoc" use cases. There's also some
convergence going on with photos/music/videos that we need to think
about for the future.

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

Le 05/10/2011 06:17, Robert Ancell a écrit On 05/10/11 10:07, Luke
Yelavich wrote:


On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:41:17AM EST, Jeremy Bicha wrote:


On 4 October 2011 14:49, Sebastien Bacher <seb128@ubuntu.com> wrote:


We probably don't want to switch video players in a lts cycle but not
sure if we should go with the new version (we staying on 3.0 which still
uses xv for Oneiric). Clutter-gst might introduce issues (vblank was
mentioning as a potential issue with compiz during this cycle when we
discussed it), not sure how much it got tested on i.e armel or how much
it could be an issue on some video drivers...

Should we go for the new version and deal with issues or stay safe with
the old version using xv, or look for a different video player to use?


Banshee plays videos too. Banshee git just got DVD support so maybe we
can use one app for music & videos. Because it's new, DVDs probably
don't work as well in Banshee yet but maybe it'll be fine once it gets
more testing and use.


I am of the opinion that we should allow users to play back video separate to their media library, should they choose to do so. This is possible on OS X with Quicktime Player and iTunes. I know if I want to look at a video thats not in my library or from a podcast, its much easier to find the video in Nautilus and open with totem.

Luke



It would be a big saving in CD size and complexity to have one
audio/video playing application (like Banshee). As long as it can run
in a simple mode (much like Shotwell does for browsing photos) is can
cover both the "managed" and "ad-hoc" use cases. There's also some
convergence going on with photos/music/videos that we need to think
about for the future.



I'm not sure picking banshee as the default video player is the
right direction. There seem to have a lot of pushback from banshee
as an audio player already. People trying to use video have the same
critics that when they don't look the audio support: slow to start,
confusing interface and so on. I would be more in favor in KISS on
the video player (we can see that in new devices where the media
player is always very simple and have no complex UI). Even KDE is
going this road:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kdemultimedia#Dragon_Player
and the latest QML version:

http://apachelog.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/dragon-player-3/



I am by no mean suggesting that we should switch to another
video/audio player for LTS (that would be crazy), but maybe
something to keep in mind for the future if we can't upgrade Totem
because of clutter.



--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

Hey Didier,

> People trying to use video have the same critics that when
> they don't look the audio support: slow to start, confusing interface and so
> on.

Well there is a bit of an interesting give and take here and it should
be talked about. The people who complain about a player being slow to
load are not the people that are really in the target any more its
people who want more features but dont care if it takes 2-20 seconds
to open.

Also along that line if it has a confusing interface that should also
be looked at and also wouldnt having 1 media player be helpful because
at least they would have a consistant interface for everything?

For every argument against banshee as the one and only player you
could argue a good few positives to switching in my opinion.

The biggest positive I see and maybe not everyone would view it this
way is just the library support, I know totem supports playlists but
it isnt really the same. In many ways using totem is really just using
nautilus in banshee you could have it pulling in all of your music and
video and bypass the file browser which is a huge win for users.

I would support having a simplified version maybe for when video is
being played but I really dont know if it would be that much of a
performance gain or a user interface gain. Id say that should be
discussed if we do end up going this way.

Anyway id hate to start a huge debate on shipping a simpler video
player vs a more complicated one but I think we should be thinking
about it.

Shane

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

I see no conflict between Totem and Banshee at all. I hadn't even
noticed that Banshee can be used for video at all, until very recently.
All labels everywhere refer to it as a music player.


I like Banshee for music. I've started testing it for videos as well and
it might be nice for that, even though that feels very much like an
afterthought. But I don't see any conflicts in any case. It's rather
nice to be able to quickly open a media file, whether it's music or
video in Totem. Having to load all my media clips in order to listen to
a voice mail seems very unnecessary.


So why can't Totem be considered the quick mediaplayer for one-shot
plays and Banshee as a more organized media library? That's how I'm
currently using them and I like it.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

Shane Fagan wrote on 05/10/11 07:59:
>

Hey Didier,


People trying to use video have the same critics that when
they don't look the audio support: slow to start, confusing interface
and so on.


Well there is a bit of an interesting give and take here and it should
be talked about. The people who complain about a player being slow to
load are not the people that are really in the target any more its
people who want more features but dont care if it takes 2-20 seconds
to open.
...


[citation needed]

--
mpt

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Shane Fagan <shanepatrickfagan@ubuntu.com> wrote:

Hey Didier,



> People trying to use video have the same critics that when

> they don't look the audio support: slow to start, confusing interface and so

> on.



Well there is a bit of an interesting give and take here and it should

be talked about. The people who complain about a player being slow to

load are not the people that are really in the target any more its

people who want more features but dont care if it takes 2-20 seconds

to open.
For me, I cannot agree at all, all features should be in plugins and by default applications should offer absolutely minimum features so that they load as quickly as possible. Then, as users wish to do something, the plugin can be loaded on demand - the currently situation is that all plugins are loaded automatically but this takes additional time.

For instance, users will accept that a video takes 5-10 secs to load I think, because they are waiting for something they directly want to do, they will be pleased once it is playing and forget about the wait - this is seen in the popularity of streaming sites. Yet, taking "2-20 secs" to even begin doing what you wish to do? The user will be deeply frustrated.

This is of course utterly opinionated, but as we see in the focus of system boot times, the user really cares about how long it takes to start doing what they want. Linux is perceived as slow simply because we create a situation where the application responds well - we load everything just in case the user wants to use it.

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop

Video playback?
 

Sebastien Bacher [2011-10-04 20:49 +0200]:
> Should we go for the new version and deal with issues or stay safe with
> the old version using xv, or look for a different video player to use?

My gut feeling is that introducing clutter into main, and dealing with
all the fallout is not a good idea for LTS. If clutter is the future,
then 12.10 is a good cycle to give it some testing.

What we should do, though, is to update totem in the ubuntu-desktop
PPA, so that interested people can try it out on various hardware?
That doesn't help us with armel packages, but at least the ARM devs
can easily grab the source package and build it.

Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)

--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop