Video Asset Support

[rustykx7g]

I think it's nice that so much can be done with standard pngs. What about supporting a broader amount of media like jpg and mp4.

I've seen 3d render of playing video and infact html5 can do it with css::transform::rotate3d. So I know hardware can do it if we can manipulate video in 3d in a browser.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... n/rotate3d

I just think it would be really sick in a wad if a wall had video in it like the 1984 Apple commercial or a Wolfenstien WAD with some of the rooms having tvs playing speeches by goebbels (or Rise of The Triad to make TVs a thing because of era).

I know flats are different than walls but a room with video floor would be trippy.

The real question, that would require more creativity than I have, is if sprites could benefit from MP4. But if it was made someone would figure out how to use it. The trick would be getting an mp4 format with an alpha channel so it sounds like mp4 sprites will never be a thing. But you could make eyes blink and faces and arms twitch. On textures you could make trees waft. Waterfalls would no longer require a large number of images, and you could make them out of a large percentage of walls without changing the map. Imagine a map with blood flowing walls.

But just as gif is a subset of images and mp4 has replaced gifs I think development that treats mp4 as a subset of images is just good tech.

[wildweasel]

As I recall, the reason MP4 isn't supported at the moment is that GZDoom would need to include, or assume the presence of, an MPEG decoder. Those are not lightweight to include with a Doom port, and all the handling for it would have to be effectively done from scratch if you wanted to use it as a sprite or wall texture.

Not to say it'd never happen, but it sounds like the kind of thing that a third-party would have to do, not something that the current project maintainers would do on top of what they're already doing.

[Rachael]

If a third-party does it, the submission won't even be CONSIDERED unless the decoder proves to be very light-weight and does not add a significant amount to the download distribution of the pre-compiled executables.

As Wildweasel pointed out - this really is not a simple case of "drop it in and forget about it". It's also been suggested once before, so I am going to mark this one as a duplicate. (edit: couldn't find it, gonna reopen it unless someone else finds it)

[phantombeta]

Video decoders also tend to have serious vulnerabilities disturbingly often. Currently one cannot get a virus by running a GZDoom mod, and I imagine most people would rather it stay like that.

[Graf Zahl]

Not to mention patenting issues with video formats, which is a lot worse than for audio. If you want good quality you cannot get it for free.

[Xane123]

I've noticed any time someone asks about video support, it's always declined; Does this mean GZDoom will never have video support again?

The only way one can have videos at the moment is by having hundreds of images quickly cycled though, and that quickly takes file size up, but a video file wouldn't be as big.

[Rachael]

That's pretty much correct, yes. If you're hoping for cinematic support - please don't hold your breath. (Seriously, don't, that's bad for your health)

That may change if the problems with the existing formats are worked out and whatever solution that gets implemented doesn't end up tripling GZDoom's distribution size, or depending too heavily on proprietary system elements that are beyond the developers' control.

Or, if someone thinks they have a working solution that actually fits the needs of the engine, feel free to send a PR.

That being said though - seriously, GZDoom is not a cinematic engine. Why do we need cinematics so bad? They literally dampen the experience of almost every game they are in - I am not kidding. I find them to be unwelcome interruptions that make a game feel more like a vaguely interactive movie than what it's really supposed to be - a game.