by helmut (Posted Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:56 am)
If I understand right, we're talking about displaying 125 images per second (=8ms per image). Each single image has to be loaded, unpacked/uncompressed and displayed. I guess that these steps result in a minimum framerate in XnView which is more than 8ms and depends much on specific hardware (on your computer you observed 16ms as a minimum). Pierre (xnview) might know exactly.
Converting your images into a video is be a good idea. I guess video players like VLC can handle even high framerates because they make use of the capabilities of the video graphics adaptor when unpacking (you have tried out yourself, already and it worked with 120 fps).
Read Main Topic
If I understand right, we're talking about displaying 125 images per second (=8ms per image). Each single image has to be loaded, unpacked/uncompressed and displayed. I guess that these steps result in a minimum framerate in XnView which is more than 8ms and depends much on specific hardware (on your computer you observed 16ms as a minimum). Pierre (xnview) might know exactly.
Converting your images into a video is be a good idea. I guess video players like VLC can handle even high framerates because they make use of the capabilities of the video graphics adaptor when unpacking (you have tried out yourself, already and it worked with 120 fps).
Read Main Topic