MAX_RTP_FRAME_SIZE in libmpdemux/demux_rtp.cpp

[Alexandre Poltorak]

Hello,

I tried to post it as question, but have not got any answer, so I fill a bug.

Recently MPlayer team member Atilla increased on my request the MAX_RTP_FRAME_SIZE in libmpdemux/demux_rtp.cpp
http://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk/libmpdemux/demux_rtp.cpp?revision=27810&view=markup

Is it possible to apply this simple change to the main sources of MPlayer package on Ubuntu ? So we will not have to wait on the next release of MPlayer.

This change allow frames up to 5MB over RTP. This is needed for high resolution cameras such as Elphel. http://www3.elphel.com/353_overview

It would be really nice to have a working mplayer out of the box with Ubuntu 8.10.

Best regards,
Alexandre

[andrey.filippov (andrey-elphel)]

Seems that one is fixed in Karmic,thanks!

But there is another one crippling working with Elphel cameras :-( - limit on the maximal frame width of just 2048 pixels - we have 2592.

And it seems to bother not just us:
http://www.google.com/search?q=swScaler%3A+Compile-time+maximum+width+is+2048+change+VOF%2FVOFW+and+recompile

The problem was fixed in MPlayer SVN on May,4 2009 but Karmic is using the one of April, 26.

----
r29256 | michael | 2009-05-04 19:34:16 -0600 (Mon, 04 May 2009) | 3 lines

Change VOFW for x86 to 5120, it allows larger images to be scaled and was
not slower. Other archs are not changed as the larger VOFW was slower on PPC.

-------------

Here is the fix in libswscale/swscale_internal.h that increases that limit to 5120 pixels:
#if ARCH_X86
#define VOFW 5120
#else
#define VOFW 2048 // faster on PPC and not tested on others
#endif

Is there any way to propagate that change to the repository so we (and more important - our customers, many of whom are the first time users of GNU/Linux) will not need to download the MPlayer code form their SVN and compile it individually, like described on our wiki:

http://wiki.elphel.com/index.php?title=Elphel_Software_Kit_for_Ubuntu#Mplayer

Andrey

[Reinhard Tartler (siretart)]

comment #1 is actually bug #443264