Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
--- Kyle Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, switching to using Bob as the deinterlacer set in that special control has also fixed the weird speed pulsing problem I was having with the new ffmpeg code. And it looks *beautiful*. Wait... A little clarification here please... Are you guys saying we need to set Bob in TWO places to make this work? I know about the bob setting in the deinterlace box, but do I also name bobdeint below in the special filters section? Is this why 1080i and 720p playback looks so sub-optimal on my native 1080i HDTV set? __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
Joe Barnhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you guys saying we need to set Bob in TWO places to make this work? No, just the deinterlace box. I know about the bob setting in the deinterlace box, but do I also name bobdeint below in the special filters section? Is this why 1080i and 720p playback looks so sub-optimal on my native 1080i HDTV set? I'm confused as to why you're using a deinterlacer for 1080i input on a native 1080i set. Kyle ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
On Friday 31 December 2004 10:04 am, Joe Barnhart wrote: --- Kyle Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, switching to using Bob as the deinterlacer set in that special control has also fixed the weird speed pulsing problem I was having with the new ffmpeg code. And it looks *beautiful*. Wait... A little clarification here please... Are you guys saying we need to set Bob in TWO places to make this work? No. Isaac ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
--- Kyle Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm confused as to why you're using a deinterlacer for 1080i input on a native 1080i set. I'm just shotgunning anything that might make my HDTV look more HD. 720p material in particular looks bad on my set. The scaling is poor and produces stair-step artifacts that are quite distracting on material like football games. 1080i is mostly good, but not as good as a settop OTA receiver box. I'm using Xv on nVidia with 6111 driver. My modeline is 1080i and seems to work judging by the UI (both myth and window manager). __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
I'm using Xv on nVidia with 6111 driver. My modeline is 1080i and seems to work judging by the UI (both myth and window manager). Isn't one of the complaints about the nVidia drivers that they don't support interlaced modes correctly? With proper interlacing support in the driver, you should just be able to use Xv scaling of progressive video and it should look as good as it can on a display of a different native resolution. FWIW, I hate interlacing. Interlacing was a technology devised to overcome a limitation of one kind of display technology and should have been deprecated with the advent of DTV. Sorry to open THAT can of worms; just my $0.02. :) Cheers, Kyle ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
1920x1080 HDTV's? (was Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?)
While writing the below response, I started to wonder if there are *any* HDTV's available with 1920x1080 pixels. More info below. Keeping it short for those who just want to get to the point... :) On 12/31/2004 11:55 AM, Kyle Rose wrote: FWIW, I hate interlacing. Interlacing was a technology devised to overcome a limitation of one kind of display technology and should have been deprecated with the advent of DTV. Sorry to open THAT can of worms; just my $0.02. :) The limitation: bandwidth. If interlacing is no longer relevant in the age of digital TV, that implies that we now have unlimited bandwidth. However, looking at ATSC high-definition TV, we have two primary modes: 720p ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (fr)/sec and 60fields (fi)/sec) and 1080i ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sec and 60fi/sec). (Yes, I'm ignoring the 30fr/sec with 30fi/sec, and the 24fr/sec with 24fi/sec progressive modes available for 1080 and 720 resolutions--not to mention the 12 other formats with lower resolutions.) So, what is the purpose of 1080i? Basically,it allows higher resolution at approximately the same bandwidth. 720p gives 921,600 pixels and 1080i gives 2,073,600 pixels--more than double the pixels of 720p. However both 720p and 1080i take approximately 3MHz bandwidth, compared to 6MHz for NTSC (HDTV takes less bandwidth because of the compression that's possible with the digital signal). So, if 1080i takes half the bandwidth of NTSC, why not make it [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, the broadcasters feel that the benefits of the progressive format are not worth the cost of the bandwidth--i.e. they would rather be able to transmit twice the number of channels (=2 times as much space for advertisements) in the bandwidth they have available. Therefore, 1080i yields a much better picture than 720p for slow-changing scenes: it is not ideal for sports or other shows that are composed primarily of fast-motion scenes. Given that in most television shows--dramas, comedies, news, etc.--the fast-motion scenes are a very small percentage of the show, 1080i allows much better overall picture quality. Of course, since nearly all HDTV's on the market have only 1280x720 pixels, the quality benefit is chiefly available to those people using a computer to output to something other than a TV (i.e. high resolution monitors (such as WUXGA) or--for those with a lot of extra cash lying around--a projector with an extremely high optical resolution that can fully resolve 1920x1080, like the Runco DTV-1200 ( http://www.runco.com/OP_PA_dtv1200.html , MSRP $44,995.00)). But, wait! My TV says it supports 1080i. It does. It accepts a 1080i signal, deinterlaces it, scales it down to 1280x720 pixels, and displays it. Therefore, the TV's available today completely negate the advantage of 1080i (better picture quality) by scaling down to 1280x720 (which can even produce a lower-quality image than an unscaled 720p image). So, are there any real 1920x1080 TV's out there? I figure if I'm buying an HDTV, I'm not wasting money on a 1280x720 one, but I can't find any 1920x1080 TV's. Toshiba used to have one ( http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisions/product.asp?model=57HLX82 , MSRP $8999.99), but now that they've gone exclusively Digital Light Processing (DLP) (instead of the Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) they used for the 1920x1080 TV), it seems they only have 1280x720. I'm not willing to spend on a projector more than twice what I spent on my car, so the Runco is out of the question. Anyone know of any others? It looks to me like I may be sticking with SDTV for several more years... Mike ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: 1920x1080 HDTV's? (was Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?)
Almost every TV you will ever see is a complete rip off. You think it takes 9 big ones to make a damn TV? Think again. In addition, all the specs the salesmen give you are complete bullshit, and the specs on the TV box are bullshit too. Hell, the TV I bought SAID it had a comb filter, but then I found out it doesn't. I got fricken screwed. TVs are nothing but lies On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:22:55 -0500, Michael T. Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While writing the below response, I started to wonder if there are *any* HDTV's available with 1920x1080 pixels. More info below. Keeping it short for those who just want to get to the point... :) On 12/31/2004 11:55 AM, Kyle Rose wrote: FWIW, I hate interlacing. Interlacing was a technology devised to overcome a limitation of one kind of display technology and should have been deprecated with the advent of DTV. Sorry to open THAT can of worms; just my $0.02. :) The limitation: bandwidth. If interlacing is no longer relevant in the age of digital TV, that implies that we now have unlimited bandwidth. However, looking at ATSC high-definition TV, we have two primary modes: 720p ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (fr)/sec and 60fields (fi)/sec) and 1080i ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/sec and 60fi/sec). (Yes, I'm ignoring the 30fr/sec with 30fi/sec, and the 24fr/sec with 24fi/sec progressive modes available for 1080 and 720 resolutions--not to mention the 12 other formats with lower resolutions.) So, what is the purpose of 1080i? Basically,it allows higher resolution at approximately the same bandwidth. 720p gives 921,600 pixels and 1080i gives 2,073,600 pixels--more than double the pixels of 720p. However both 720p and 1080i take approximately 3MHz bandwidth, compared to 6MHz for NTSC (HDTV takes less bandwidth because of the compression that's possible with the digital signal). So, if 1080i takes half the bandwidth of NTSC, why not make it [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, the broadcasters feel that the benefits of the progressive format are not worth the cost of the bandwidth--i.e. they would rather be able to transmit twice the number of channels (=2 times as much space for advertisements) in the bandwidth they have available. Therefore, 1080i yields a much better picture than 720p for slow-changing scenes: it is not ideal for sports or other shows that are composed primarily of fast-motion scenes. Given that in most television shows--dramas, comedies, news, etc.--the fast-motion scenes are a very small percentage of the show, 1080i allows much better overall picture quality. Of course, since nearly all HDTV's on the market have only 1280x720 pixels, the quality benefit is chiefly available to those people using a computer to output to something other than a TV (i.e. high resolution monitors (such as WUXGA) or--for those with a lot of extra cash lying around--a projector with an extremely high optical resolution that can fully resolve 1920x1080, like the Runco DTV-1200 ( http://www.runco.com/OP_PA_dtv1200.html , MSRP $44,995.00)). But, wait! My TV says it supports 1080i. It does. It accepts a 1080i signal, deinterlaces it, scales it down to 1280x720 pixels, and displays it. Therefore, the TV's available today completely negate the advantage of 1080i (better picture quality) by scaling down to 1280x720 (which can even produce a lower-quality image than an unscaled 720p image). So, are there any real 1920x1080 TV's out there? I figure if I'm buying an HDTV, I'm not wasting money on a 1280x720 one, but I can't find any 1920x1080 TV's. Toshiba used to have one ( http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisions/product.asp?model=57HLX82 , MSRP $8999.99), but now that they've gone exclusively Digital Light Processing (DLP) (instead of the Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) they used for the 1920x1080 TV), it seems they only have 1280x720. I'm not willing to spend on a projector more than twice what I spent on my car, so the Runco is out of the question. Anyone know of any others? It looks to me like I may be sticking with SDTV for several more years... Mike ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users -- I have one Gmail invite left, email me to grab it! ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: 1920x1080 HDTV's? (was Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?)
--- Michael T. Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While writing the below response, I started to wonder if there are *any* HDTV's available with 1920x1080 pixels. More info below. The old tech of CRT supports 1080i. I have a Pioneer PRO-610HD set (about 3 years old) and its native format is 1080i. Even so, I don't think you would miss much resolution at 1280x720p on a good LCD or DLP set. If you are set on 1920x1080i you could wait for one of the next-generation LCOS sets that are based on Brillian technology. (If they survive. But it looks encouraging this week.) http://www.brilliancorp.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
[mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
'bobdeint' doesn't work properly for me when specified as an output filter. When specified on the custom filters line for a host, it does nothing: the video is not deinterlaced as far as I can tell. When specified as a channel-specific output filter, I end up with the fields stacked, implying that Xv doesn't know how to properly reconstruct each frame. Bob works fine when I specify it as the (deprecated?) deinterlacing algorithm above the custom filters input line. Cheers, Kyle ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
Re: [mythtv-users] bobdeint as output filter?
On Thursday 30 December 2004 06:26 pm, Kyle Rose wrote: 'bobdeint' doesn't work properly for me when specified as an output filter. When specified on the custom filters line for a host, it does nothing: the video is not deinterlaced as far as I can tell. The custom filters setting doesn't work properly for any deinterlacing algorithm - it's for the non-deinterlacing related filters, since all the deinterlacing algorithms are available in the deinterlacing settings box immediately above. When specified as a channel-specific output filter, I end up with the fields stacked, implying that Xv doesn't know how to properly reconstruct each frame. Same issue as above. Bob works fine when I specify it as the (deprecated?) deinterlacing algorithm above the custom filters input line. Why would it be deprecated? Isaac ___ mythtv-users mailing list mythtv-users@mythtv.org http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
