.... is it possible that the video is so "enhanced" that Intel's built in graphics (or VLC) just can't handle it?
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?
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.
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).
Jeff Gaines wrote:
36 hours to upscale 102 kB of video?!?!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!
On 21/05/2026 in message <n786krFo0udU2@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
36 hours to upscale 102 kB of video?!?!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!
Yes! Don't think upscale is the expression I'd use though :-
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" :-)
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494928:13:55 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,957 |