Video Resolution setting not retained

[strk]

I'm setting Video Resolution to 160x120, but if I move out of the Audio/Video tab and back, the resolution is back to the highest. This is as of commit aef0839

[ElLamparto]

This bug is still there (qTox v1.4.0-81-g4f0ef6c / Debian 32bit). Please reopen.

[b4n]

Okay, I found out why the setting isn't properly kept. It's because AVForm::videoModes contains the whole list of video modes supported by the camera (set to CameraDevice::getVideoModes(devName) in AVForm::updateVideoModes), but the combo box is only filled with a few "best" modes, but AVForm::videoModes is indexed using the combo box's index in AVForm::onVideoModesIndexChanged(). So if e.g. your camera has 5 resolutions and 6 framerates but filtering "best" modes only keeps 3 groups, you'll always get one of the first 3 modes out of the 5*6=30 possible combinations.

I see two relatively easy fixes:

• only keep the filtered modes in AVForm::videoModes, so indexing it is fine.

• don't filter which modes are displayed. I prefer this until (?) video quality over the network automatically follows the available bandwidth, so I can select a lower framerate than the default (which is the highest available).

  I understand that this was probably how it originally was written, and probably has been changed in an effort to make the UI cleaner for most users showing simpler things like "480p". But as it's highly likely to affect not only quality but also usability (if the network doesn't follow, a 1080p@60 won't be any good) I'd like to be able to tune it. Sure, a list of 30 (or more) possible combination wouldn't be awesome, but it would be flexible.

  Sure this wouldn't be prefect, and the perfect fix would be that the video setting only select what is captured from the camera, and not what is actually transferred across the network; so the user would just select the preferred quality his cam/computer can achieve reasonably well (i.e. good framerate and not too high CPU usage processing it). But that would mean there would be a dynamic quality adjustment somewhere else that basically only depends on whether the network struggles or not. Though, I have no clue if it does actually already exist (although I would think it doesn't)?

Anyway, I can provide a patch for either solution, I'd just like to know which one is preferred.

[b4n]

Hum, basically my preferred solution would be reverting f595f4f I guess :)
See #2867

[b4n]

Opened #3371 just fixing the setting.