The VideoLAN Forums

I assume nothing is in the works for supporting openGL 3 video output drivers? Searched forums & Trac - find nothing. A few posts about GL2.

I'm no expert on video output drivers. Did try SMPlayer2 / mplayer2 - that supports GL3 (& so does my card, as well as many fairly recent cards). My GeForce GT 240 is NOT high end. On my machine, there's a noticeable difference between GL2 & GL3 (or betwn GL3 & DirectX, Direct3D or any other selections in VLC 2.0.1).

GL3 shows more difference on higher res vids - 1920x1080, 1280x720.
If adding support for OpenGL 3 is a possibility, to my eye, it makes enough of a difference to be worth it.

OpenGL3 does not change anything in terms of video quality.

Really? I'm no expert, but sure seems like it does (on some vids) & others more educated in the topic than me think it does. I'm not one to "convince myself" something looks / sounds / works better, just because it's newer or more expensive. Quite the opposite.

Why does the newest GL3 (& 4) exist? Just for someone to make $?

I've compared exact scenes & even same frames side by side - mainly on 1920 x 1080 - various formats. Open GL (& other Windows appropriate) video output drivers available in VLC definitely look less sharp & often have a tiny bit of "haze" (as if shot w/ a softening filter, adding a slight whitish cast) compared to GL3.

Maybe it's a difference in other settings in VLC vs other player, not GL3 itself. But, I've tried numerous settings changes w/ VLC video equalizer to make vids look as good (using Open GL) as GL3 in another player, but haven't come up w/ a way.

BTW, VLC 2.0.2 has "Open GL Video Output." Should we assume that's the 1st version?

Thanks.

You are mistaken the GL3 output of mplayer with OpenGL3...

OK.... fair enough. Though that doesn't help me understand the issue. Maybe I used the wrong terms in the "VLC Feature Requests."
As said, I'm no expert on video output drivers. GL3... Open GL3. My mistake. I'd have guessed they were very similar in function.

I incorrectly assumed MPlayer(2) GL3 was Open GL3.
Well... are there any plans for VLC to support GL3, as it does seem to make improvement on * some * hi res vids?

GL3 is a mplayer code. It cannot be ported easily.

OK, I understand. Too bad. GL3 doesn't make a huge difference on EVERY single video - just some, mostly higher res. On ones where it does, it's sometimes quite noticeable. In most other respects, VLC has Mplayer / Mplayer2 beat.

GL3 is a mplayer code. It cannot be ported easily.

A lot of things aren't easy, but are still done.

Are there any plans to add any type of "GL3"? Similar to (or other), that MPlayer2 uses, that DOES make a video quality difference, on many vids?

I've compared many vids, side by side using GL3 (in Mplayer2) w/ various output drivers (using those others in both VLC & MPlayer2 / SMPlayer - for comparison).

Comparing MPlayer2's GL3 against any output driver in VLC (that works on Windows Vista), there's a noticeable improvement on most newer, higher res vids w/ GL3. Enough of a difference to make it worthwhile.

On HD vids, w/ HD monitor & GPU capable of hi res output (& GL3), there's a marked improvement w/ MPlayer2's GL3 vs anything I've tried in VLC, or other output drivers in MPlayer / MPlayer2.

GL3 should be nice for upscaling and downscaling. But in 1:1 should not change a thing.

I can't speak to very technical details of GL3 vs other video output modes. I'd rather use VLC - I find it much more user friendly. This isn't a pitch to use MPlayer2. I've tried to get VLC to match overall quality of MPlayer2's GL3.
http://mplayer2.srsfckn.biz/

Video output
...It’s a good idea to try the other video outputs, especially gl3. If your video
drivers support it, that’s the one you should use.

Success depends heavily on driver support (especially AMD drivers are
notoriously bad at this), so you need to experiment a little.
The gl3 output requires OpenGL 3.2 support, but offers much higher quality
scaling than other video outputs.

My GPU supports OpenGL 3.2. VLC aside, even running 2 identical instances of MPlayer2, side by side, same settings, same machine, same video - comparing GL3 & every other higher level Windows video output - GL3 generally gave better results.
The MPLayer instances are identical in settings, except using GL3 in one.

I don't know if it's some "default settings" a player uses (color, sat., sharpness?) that are somehow associated WITH GL3 (ASIDE from just being GL3 drivers), vs GL3 actually having BETTER video quality, but time after time, video after video, GL3 always beat the other video outputs, on higher resolution, good quality vids. Same outcome between MPlayer versions, against VLC's different video outputs.

You say it shouldn't make any difference & I don't have the deep technical knowledge to argue. You'll have to tell me how / why I consistently see better results w/ GL3. If there's a good reason, NOT due to GL3, I'd like to know. Then maybe I can use VLC most of the time.

But I do know what I see, time after time, in a fairly controlled "experiment."
Is it possible I could play w/ video equalizer settings w/ another video output & get it to equal what I see from GL3 (& hopefully, be able to save those settings for global use)? Possibly. But why bother?

Thanks.

Why not posting screenshots?

Well, I could crop out... parts. I don't know this answer, because never tried to u/l HI RES images to a hosting site. To have any chance of showing fair comparisons, they'd have to be HQ images.
To show true quality, need to show more than a nose, or dog's leg.

I can TAKE them, but u/l them is another matter. Be ~ 2 - 2.5 MB ea, maybe 4 pics. NO idea what some free hosting sites' size limits are. Very seldom use them. Do have acct w/ image shack Any ideas?

I can check - but also don't know the quality of built in screenshot modules in MPlayer2 (or VLC). They may CAPTURE in 1920x1080, but their quality limits vs what my GL3 capable GPU & HD-ISP monitor show, may be 2 diff things. I don't know the answer.

Another thing I've noticed - GL3 seems to handle motion w/o blurring quite as much.

EDIT: As I suspected, there seems to be no consistent correlation between quality of a moving video (or paused screen) of one player & the quality, matching colorization, sharpness, etc., of that player's screenshots. I took several screenshots from each player for identical frames.
1st, I watch moving pictures, not screenshots.
In the players - moving or paused on identical frames - Mplayer2 w/ GL3 has better detail, clarity & more life like color (on faces, etc.) than VLC using openGL or DirectX. [I have a hard time in VLC on some hi res vids stalling / hesitating, unless using openGL. DirectX & Direct3D both have the problem on some vids, but not in Mplayer / Mplayer 2 for same vids. Maybe has to do /w VLC no longer having settings for CPU / hardware acceleration, so I don't know how - OR IF - it's handling that on a fast machine.]

The quality of screenshots, however, of each player are more or less reversed in the above areas - VLC's screenshots look better than VLC's actual moving footage or paused screens (for exact frame of screenshot). And VLC's screenshots look a bit better than MPlayer2's screenshots. The only thing that shows me, is VLC seems to have a better screenshot module.

Again, I don't watch screenshots. In sections of movies that are more "distant" shots, the difference in MP2 & VLC is not as great in clarity, but even then, I think MP2 still has better life like color using GL3. For most games, that wouldn't matter. In close ups of foliage, faces, etc., MPlayer2 w/ GL3 shows a bigger difference. If just playing games that are fairly dark, probably won't make much difference. For movies w/ peoples' face shots or bright scenes w/ close ups, MPlayer2 is better, IMO. But, just try them both & see. I won't post links to other players, but if you need help, getting the latest builds, PM me.