| 96 | | By default, ffplay (as a receiver for testing latency) introduces a small latency of its own, so if you use it for testing (see troubleshooting section) it may not reflect latency accurately. NB that ffplay also has somewhat poor video output, though, so don't base quality levels on that. Also some settings mentioned above like "probesize" might help it start more quickly. |
| 97 | | |
| 98 | | Also useful is mplayer with its -benchmark for testing latency (-noaudio and/or -nocache *might* be useful, though I haven't found -nocache to provide any latency benefit). |
| 99 | | |
| 100 | | Using the SDL out option while using FFmpeg to receive the stream might also help to view frames with less client side latency: "ffmpeg ... -f sdl -" (this works especially well with -fflags nobuffer, though in my tests is still barely slower than using mplayer). |
| | 96 | By default, ffplay (as a receiver for testing latency) introduces significant latency of its own, so if you use it for testing (see troubleshooting section) it may not reflect latency accurately. FFplay introduces some video artifacts, also, see notes for it in "troubleshooting streaming" section Also some settings mentioned above like "probesize" might help it start more quickly. |
| | 97 | |
| | 98 | Useful is mplayer with its -benchmark for testing latency (-noaudio and/or -nocache *might* be useful, though I haven't found -nocache to provide any latency benefit it might work for you). |
| | 99 | |
| | 100 | Using the SDL out option while using FFmpeg to receive the stream might also help to view frames with less client side latency: "ffmpeg ... -f sdl <input_here> "window title"" (this works especially well with -fflags nobuffer, though in my tests is still barely more latency than using mplayer -benchmark at best). This doesn't have a "drop frames if you run out of cpu" option so it can get quite far behind at times (introduce more latency variably). |