"This video is not available." - maybe it hasn't finished uploading/processing yet?

Bummer. Would've loved to watch it.

What country are you in?

I seen the video (it's available at this time).
I'd like to know how you downloaded the vid prior to playing it, could come in handy 😁

smeezekitty wrote:

What country are you in?

Germany.

Cool!

It seems to be running smoother than a 486DX2-66 playing a 320x240 MPEG video. Not sure if that is due to the extra CPU processing power or the lower resolution of the video. I wonder if a video card with Video Acceleration would do any good in this case.

devius wrote:

It seems to be running smoother than a 486DX2-66 playing a 320x240 MPEG video. Not sure if that is due to the extra CPU processing power or the lower resolution of the video. I wonder if a video card with Video Acceleration would do any good in this case.

I would rather assume both things factor in there! A graphics accelerator would be an interesting addition.

Tetrium wrote:

I seen the video (it's available at this time).
I'd like to know how you downloaded the vid prior to playing it, could come in handy 😁

I am using the windows build of the youtube-dl python script: http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/

I am actually directly piping the output of youtube-dl into the windows build of mplayer. Although youtube-dl can down certainly download to a file.

Recent versions of mplayer compiled for 486 only instructions (look for the "generic" build) are available here: http://oss.netfarm.it/mplayer-win32.php

With the proper decode options it can be quite fast. I found that on the S3 ViRGE the SDL video output is by far the fastest.

Down side is all these tools require Windows 2000 or newer.

Germany.

Arghh its probably youtube's copyright policy. Can you select a video that I can play back on it that is reasonably distinct (because my lousy camera(s)) and definitely not blocked in Germany?

It seems to be running smoother than a 486DX2-66 playing a 320x240 MPEG video. Not sure if that is due to the extra CPU processing power or the lower resolution of the video. I wonder if a video card with Video Acceleration would do any good in this case.

Well this is a 486-120 so about twice as fast. Also it is 176x144 which isn't a whole lot of data to work with.

Still it can't do any scaling up (hence the need to drop the screen resolution) or atleast not without massive framerate drop.

Also I can't do anything else on the machine or the playback will stutter.

I don't think it is using any acceleration at all. Even though the ViRGE has hardware conversion and scaling, mplayer is using SDL which is just using basic windib

Nice vid smeeze, I like the idea of piping youtube-dl's output into mplayer. If you download and output straight to a file and read it from there is the framerate better or about the same?

fyy wrote:

Nice vid smeeze, I like the idea of piping youtube-dl's output into mplayer. If you download and output straight to a file and read it from there is the framerate better or about the same?

It is smoother when read from a file. Notably it doesn't do the occasional video freeze/audio loop. But the overall framerate seems about the same.
And waiting for it to completely download first is annoying

I appreciate the "It can be done" factor, but what's the point of playing back youtube video at this quality?
Some things a 486 simply cannot do to an extent that is worthwhile. The argument that it technically is able to play back a youtube video at highly reduced quality doesn't matter. If you wanted to watch a youtube video, you wouldn't do it this way unless this was your only computer.
Congrats on actually making it play it (sort of) though.

LunarG wrote:

Some things a 486 simply cannot do to an extent that is worthwhile.

Worthwhile is subjective.

The argument that it technically is able to play back a youtube video at highly reduced quality doesn't matter. If you wanted to watch a youtube video, you wouldn't do it this way unless this was your only computer.
Congrats on actually making it play it (sort of) though.

144p is actually the default quality on youtube mobile unless you change it. That is so it can play on 2G wireless networks

smeezekitty wrote:

Worthwhile is subjective. […]
Show full quote

LunarG wrote:

Some things a 486 simply cannot do to an extent that is worthwhile.

Worthwhile is subjective.

The argument that it technically is able to play back a youtube video at highly reduced quality doesn't matter. If you wanted to watch a youtube video, you wouldn't do it this way unless this was your only computer.
Congrats on actually making it play it (sort of) though.

144p is actually the default quality on youtube mobile unless you change it. That is so it can play on 2G wireless networks

When it hits you that there is a specific video you wanna check out on youtube, would you normally select to do so at 144p ?
How many people who can afford to play around with retro-hardware are still limited to 4G ?

As I said, I appreciate the novelty factor of it, I just don't see the use for it. 😀

When it hits you that there is a specific video you wanna check out on youtube, would you normally select to do so at 144p ?

Occasionally youtube selects 144p by it self. The internet here is very iffy at times. Usually I can get 6MBP/s but sometimes it will drop down to 100K or slower
causing youtube to drop to 144p

How many people who can afford to play around with retro-hardware are still limited to 4G ?

Huh?

There is no 4G coverage where I am. Only 3G. But youtube mobile defaults to 144p so 2g users can use it

As I said, I appreciate the novelty factor of it, I just don't see the use for it. 😀

Obviously there is some use since youtube offers 144p

Meant to write 2G of course...

EDIT: Also, I've not seen youtube mobile default to 144p at any point while having a mobile phone capable of playing youtube videos.

LunarG wrote:

EDIT: Also, I've not seen youtube mobile default to 144p at any point while having a mobile phone capable of playing youtube videos.

Even my android tablet does it on Wi-Fi

Unless I select "HQ", it is 144p
http://postimg.org/image/5alr8pp6j/

Perhaps it's based on available bandwidth? I've never had youtube mobile go to 144p. But I'm sure it can happen under low bandwidth situations.

LunarG wrote:

Perhaps it's based on available bandwidth? I've never had youtube mobile go to 144p. But I'm sure it can happen under low bandwidth situations.

You only need to be away just enough from your wifi hotspot for it to happen. Even if rarely it happens to me a few times on my Samsung Galaxy .

LunarG wrote:

Meant to write 2G of course...

EDIT: Also, I've not seen youtube mobile default to 144p at any point while having a mobile phone capable of playing youtube videos.

At my parent's place, I struggle to get a 3G signal, so it's not necessarily anything to do with how much money you have, and far more to do with what your area actually provides. Let's not forget that there are areas of the UK where you barely get ANY mobile signal, even now!