-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 172
@moq/watch: add pull mode to video renderer #1367
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
skirsten
wants to merge
1
commit into
moq-dev:main
Choose a base branch
from
skirsten:feat/pull-renderer
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+46
−4
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if this is worth the compute cost of busy looping
requestAnimationFrameif there's no work to be done. Is 120fps versus 144fps that important?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
its 120fps vs the actual video fps (24) so the GPU is actually less busy with the change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wait what? how does that work?
With
pushwe should schedule 24 rAF callbacks, whilepullshould schedule refresh rate rAF callbacks? Are you sure those screenshots are correct?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pretty sure, but let me do some actual power testing on my phone or laptop...
I think it has to do with v-sync, but yea, it doesn't really make sense :)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, I did some more testing and the screenshots are real and there is definitely different magic on chrome's side between them.
But there is actually very little difference in the power draw. I remember this being a real issue in the past though, but that might have been fixed in a chrome or driver update.
Also it seems to depend on the display refresh rate a lot as on a 120 fps display I was getting very different numbers for both.
Anyway, I don't think this is actually needed so we can close this or continue but keep the current
pushas default?Btw, both of these run into a issue on 60hz display with 60hz content: It's actually rendering at ~45 fps or so because some frames get unlucky and are being scheduled too late and get overwritten by the next one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it might be a good idea to schedule the next RAF within the loop, but don't schedule again if the frame didn't change.