Video player with variable playback speed

I wonder if anybody reading this post has an experience with a variable
speed video player program he/she can recommend. Searching the web shows
a few potential candidates but I'd rather hear from actual users first.
Thanks.

In message <jnf580$j24$>, phantom
<> writes:
>I wonder if anybody reading this post has an experience with a variable
>speed video player program he/she can recommend. Searching the web
>shows a few potential candidates but I'd rather hear from actual users
>first. Thanks.

VLC has. It samples the sound so it stays the same pitch and in sync.
The speed goes in steps - 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 32; 1, .67, .5, .33,
..25, .12, .06, .03 - the sound mutes above 4 or (I think) below .12 .
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

a little bit of me still feels that some southerners think we northerners are
issued at birth with doomed kestrels. - Alison Graham, Radio Times,
3-9/11/2007.

On 4/27/2012 3:12 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> VLC has. It samples the sound so it stays the same pitch and in sync.
> The speed goes in steps - 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 32; 1, .67, .5, .33,
> .25, .12, .06, .03 - the sound mutes above 4 or (I think) below .12 .

Actually, I was taking for granted that the sound would be muted in fast
forward, so what you are saying here is interesting. I'll look into it.
Thanks.

In message <jnfll3$t2t$>, phantom
<> writes:
>On 4/27/2012 3:12 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> VLC has. It samples the sound so it stays the same pitch and in sync.
>> The speed goes in steps - 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 32; 1, .67, .5, .33,
>> .25, .12, .06, .03 - the sound mutes above 4 or (I think) below .12 .
>
>Actually, I was taking for granted that the sound would be muted in
>fast forward, so what you are saying here is interesting. I'll look
>into it. Thanks.
>
It's quite listenable to - speech is even understandable at 1.5,
sometimes 2 and 3. (and .67 and .5.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`A device called a transistor, which has several applications in radio where a
vacuum tube ordinarily is employed, was demonstrated yesterday.' - small
article
on an inside page of The New York Times, December 1947 (Computing 1999-12-16)

On 4/28/2012 12:11 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> It's quite listenable to - speech is even understandable at 1.5,
> sometimes 2 and 3. (and .67 and .5.)

I've installed it and you are right: the sound is still quite usable
even at faster speeds. PPersonally though I think having a slider for
speed would be more convenient than this discretly incremented method.

In message <jnie14$5au$>, phantom
<> writes:
>On 4/28/2012 12:11 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> It's quite listenable to - speech is even understandable at 1.5,
>> sometimes 2 and 3. (and .67 and .5.)
>
>I've installed it and you are right: the sound is still quite usable

Yes, I find it decidedly usable up to the maximum before they mute it,
if it's just sound - speech only up to about 2 or 3, as I said.

>even at faster speeds. PPersonally though I think having a slider for
>speed would be more convenient than this discretly incremented method.

I think I agree, but I can see technical reasons for them having done it
that way. (Do share if you find another player that has either a slider
or some other sort of continuous adjustment.)

Thanks for coming back; I like to know how my suggestions work for
people, and it's useful for other 'group readers too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"OLTION'S COMPLETE, UNABRIDGED HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE
Bang! ...crumple." - Jery Oltion

On 4/29/2012 2:29 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I think I agree, but I can see technical reasons for them having done it
> that way. (Do share if you find another player that has either a slider
> or some other sort of continuous adjustment.)

I think the continuous adjustment could only be done with sound
suppression, but I doubt the developers would sacrifice for that what
they obviously consider a nifty feature.