GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 346203
ximagesrc does not respect framerate filter caps
Last modified: 2006-07-09 18:59:11 UTC
Read summary! It doesnt do 25 fps even if you set filtercaps between it and the next element.
Seems to work for me (unless I am misunderstandingn the bug description): $ gst-launch-0.10 ximagesrc ! video/x-raw-rgb,framerate=\(fraction\)1/1 ! fakesink -v .... /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "event ******* E (type: 102, GstEventNewsegment, update=(boolean)false, rate=(double)1, applied_rate=(double)1, format=(GstFormat)GST_FORMAT_BYTES, start=(gint64)0, stop=(gint64)-1, position=(gint64)0) 0x807eaa0" /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:00.000449000, duration: 0:00:00.999551000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:01.000000000, duration: 0:00:01.000000000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:02.000000000, duration: 0:00:01.000000000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:03.000000000, duration: 0:00:01.000000000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:04.000000000, duration: 0:00:01.000000000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" /pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:05.000000000, duration: 0:00:01.000000000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" q/pipeline0/fakesink0: last-message = "chain ******* < (3528000 bytes, timestamp: 0:00:06.000000000, duration: 0:00:01.000000000, offset: -1, offset_end: -1, flags: 32) 0x811e018" Seems a bit weird that it sends a newsegment event in BYTES rather than TIME though. If I try 25fps it just sends out frames as quickly as possible it seems (it's using 100% CPU then on this box)
This is not a bug, confirmed. It was X responding too slow, ximagesrc ! ximagesink.