You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have performed tests with an HDMI-grabber attached to a USB-3 input. The video source was from a video camera.
The frame rate for the v4l2 device was 50 FPS, this result of processing the data 50 time per second. For WebRTC purpose this is not ideal and processing only all 2., 3,… frames may be good.
For such applications, we can stream to the virtual v4l2 device with a size of 640×360 instead of the size of 1920×1080 for the camera input. Processing the data with the full acquired picture size result to a high CPU load. Reducing the size of the input stream to the output stream size result in 1/3 processor time.
With an actual i9 system, I had 15.4 ms, e.g., 4.5 ms. On an older system, the values were 72 ms and 18 ms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have performed tests with an HDMI-grabber attached to a USB-3 input. The video source was from a video camera.
The frame rate for the v4l2 device was 50 FPS, this result of processing the data 50 time per second. For WebRTC purpose this is not ideal and processing only all 2., 3,… frames may be good.
For such applications, we can stream to the virtual v4l2 device with a size of 640×360 instead of the size of 1920×1080 for the camera input. Processing the data with the full acquired picture size result to a high CPU load. Reducing the size of the input stream to the output stream size result in 1/3 processor time.
With an actual i9 system, I had 15.4 ms, e.g., 4.5 ms. On an older system, the values were 72 ms and 18 ms.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: