subject:"RE\: \[mythtv\-users\] PVR\-350 vs FX\-5200 TVOut"

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Minh Duong wrote:
Does the FX5200 cards have mpeg2 hardware decoders?
nVidia's site isn't clear on this.  I think that some
of them might, but I think it's only on the mobile
versions.  Anybody got any info on this?
	No, but XvMC is a partial MPEG2 decoder.  It helps reduce CPU 
load when playing large MPEG2 (e.g. HDTV) streams.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread PAUL WILLIAMSON

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/16/2005 7:47:21 AM 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/16/2005 6:08:56 AM 
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Minh Duong wrote:


 Does the FX5200 cards have mpeg2 hardware decoders?
 nVidia's site isn't clear on this.  I think that some
 of them might, but I think it's only on the mobile
 versions.  Anybody got any info on this?

   No, but XvMC is a partial MPEG2 decoder.  It helps reduce CPU

load when playing large MPEG2 (e.g. HDTV) streams.

-Cory

Actually, the 5200 *does* have an mpeg-2 decoder on the card. 
This was confirmed by a couple users onthis list a few months ago.
Also, nVidia has stated that the FX series cards are equipped 
with mpeg-2 decoders.  I believe the drivers take advantage of 
that as well.

Paul

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I've spent literally years trying to get the g400 to look picture
perfect under framebuffer/X/matroxset and have never succeeded.  If you
know anything more, I would love to hear about it.
	TVout solutions are a wildcard with any card.  Most suck and are 
unknown as far as how they operate internally.

Do you have a modeline that sets a proper ntsc resolution and timing?
720/640x480 @ 59.9 cycles/s?
	Yes, but proper ntsc resolution is not 59.9 Hz... it's 29.97Hz, 
interlaced.  I use this:

ModeLine coryntsci 14.3 720 760 824 910 480 484 492 525 interlace
	... with a homebrew circuit to modulate RGB from the VGA at this 
proper frequency into NTSC Y/C and Composite.  It is *NOT* a rate/scanline
converter which is what almost all tvout cards use.  If you use that 
modeline on a VGA monitor, it won't like it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  What interlacing?  All I want
mythtv to do is record a signal (interlaced since it's standard NTSC)
and play it back exactly as it would have been sent to the TV directly;
so that means recorded interlaced and played back, interlaced.  Now that
may (or most likely) mean packing two interlaced fields into a frame,
but the video card should display the fields interlaced, one after the
other.
	Which it can, but unless you are using production-quality hardware 
with video genlocking, what you record will not be exactly synced with 
what you get out.

Any pointers on how to set configure all of this (the tv-out part for
the g400) because after many years of searching, I just have not been
able to find anything suitable.
	It's a lot more complicated than most people realize.  Everyone 
wants a standards compliant NTSC modeline for their XYZ-brand card. 
Trouble is the one common component in all of them (the tvout scanline 
converter chip) is the *ONLY* part that is responsible for generating 
standards-compliant output.  There's typically little or no control over 
that and any modeline tweakings are masked by its operation.

Get thee to google for g400 tvout setup.
-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Donavan Stanley

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:31:54 -0500, Brian J. Murrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Yeah.  OSD.  On-screen-display.  Perhaps you thought that by OSD I only
 meant the few overlays that pop-up over playing video.  No.  By OSD I
 mean the whole On-screen-display.

So rather than follow established terminology you invent your own and
expect everyone else to follow along?  Pretty much everyone understand
that an OSD refers to UI that's overlayed on the video rather than
generic GUIs, except those that need to justify the fact that they've
been talking out their ass.


 Exactly.  I never said that the OSD needed to know about vsync.  I said
 video playback needed to know about vsync.  The OSD still needs to be
 able to display in a manner that is compatible with the video card's
 TV-Out mode, and for the G400, the only true replication of video
 broadcast display I have seen available is with DirectFB, which means
 that if you want to use DirectFB's CRTC2 TV-out for video display you
 also have to use that for the OSD display since using the
 X11/framebuffer TV-out (i.e. using the matroxfb_maven kernel module and
 matroxset) is mutually exclusive with using DirectFB.

You can get quality thats indistinguishable from broadcast using nVidia cards.


 
  Please, get a clue before spouting off extremely inaccurate comments.
 
 No Isaac, my comments are not extremely inaccurate. 

You've made several statements about what is and is not possible that
were flat out wrong.   You tried to portray yourself as an expert when
it's pretty clear that you have even done the basic homework.  You've
made claims about MythTV without even having a CLUE about how it's
implemented.  So yeah I think Isaac was pretty much spot on.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 07:59 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   TVout solutions are a wildcard with any card.  Most suck and are 
 unknown as far as how they operate internally.

That is true, for most, but not for the g400 -- with DirectFB.  I
understand what you are saying about the unknown (rather undocumented)
internal operations, but one of the DirectFB developers did some great
work for the g400 and utilized it's tv-encoder as it is supposed to be,
producing a perfectly timed, interlaced, overscanned output that looks
_exactly_ like TV.  No tearing, no interlacing artifacts -- none of
that.

 ModeLine coryntsci 14.3 720 760 824 910 480 484 492 525 interlace

I will try that.  But I have found that one modeline for one brand of
video card just does not work with other video cards, so unless this is
for a g400 specifically, I won't get my hopes up.

   Which it can, but unless you are using production-quality hardware 
 with video genlocking, what you record will not be exactly synced with 
 what you get out.

But you can.  I have done so for years using another PVR application
that could utilize DirectFB and g400 in tv-out mode.  Encoding artifacts
aside, it was TV-picture perfect.  You could flip between tv and the
signal going through the g400 and they were identical in smoothness and
picture size.

   Get thee to google for g400 tvout setup.

Been there, done that.  Nobody seems to want (or able to achieve)
picture perfect output.  There seems to be a lot of satisfaction with
taking an ntsc signal and displaying it scaled to 800x600 on the
framebuffer.  That seems to be the state of the art with
x11/framebuffer/matroxset.  Sad thing is that it can look so much
better.

If anyone with a g400 is interested in seeing how good it can be, you
need directfb and mplayer with the dfbmga video out driver.  Use some
source material that is suitable -- must be 480 lines, the more motion
the better (to see the interlacing artifacts of X/framebuffer) but even
just a ticker is sufficient to see it.

Compare that with the mplayer on X/framebuffer with matroxset hacks.
You will see what I mean.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 08:28 -0500, Donavan Stanley wrote:
 
 So rather than follow established terminology

Established where?  Here?  I guess I have not been hanging out here long
enough to know that while the world of set-top-boxes calls the display
that it shows on the TV the OSD, myth folks use that to mean only the
video overlayed portion of the display.

But let's just move on OK?  I will stand corrected and from now on I
will only use OSD to mean the video overlayed portion if that is what we
call it here.  Just so I get my terms correct. what shall I call the
rest of the graphical display?  Can we move on and stop arguing about
syntax now?  There is so much more we can accomplish if we can decide to
be grown up and not bicker about the small things.

 you invent your own and
 expect everyone else to follow along?

But I didn't invent it.  OSD means On Screen Display.

 Pretty much everyone understand
 that an OSD refers to UI that's overlayed on the video rather than
 generic GUIs, except those that need to justify the fact that they've
 been talking out their ass.

So now you are going to tell me what I meant by OSD?  You can't just
take my word for it that I mean the whole graphical On Screen Display?

 You can get quality thats indistinguishable from broadcast using nVidia cards.

You can with Matrox g4*0 cards too.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Michael J. Lynch

Brian J. Murrell wrote:
snip
 

ModeLine coryntsci 14.3 720 760 824 910 480 484 492 525 interlace
   

I will try that.  But I have found that one modeline for one brand of
video card just does not work with other video cards, so unless this is
for a g400 specifically, I won't get my hopes up.
 

Ummmthe modeline is only specific to the monitor being driven, *not*
the video card.  In other words, the values in the modeline are determined
by the requirements and/or limits of the monitor.  It's the job of the video
card driver to convert the modeline information into the specific 
information
for the video card.

While it is true that a modeline may work with one video card and not 
another
that has nothing to do with the modeline itself and has everything to do
with video card and driver capabilities.

Probably the biggest video card/driver incompatability with the modeline
Cory gave you is whether or not the card/driver can do interlaced modes or
not.  Other than that, I can't imagine a card that can't generate the 
relatively
slow timings from *any* NTSC or PAL modeline.

 

snip

--
Michael J. Lynch
What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about -- author unknown
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

Cory Papenfuss wrote:
TVout solutions are a wildcard with any card.  Most suck and are 
unknown as far as how they operate internally.

I just recently found out that the TV-out of SiS chipsets (many, many 
HTPC barebones use them) are not capable of outputting interlaced 
material. Quite an important thing if you want picture perfect I'd say. 
I am trying to get the modeline right

... with a homebrew circuit to modulate RGB from the VGA at this 
proper frequency into NTSC Y/C and Composite.  It is *NOT* a 
rate/scanline
converter which is what almost all tvout cards use.  If you use that 
modeline on a VGA monitor, it won't like it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  What interlacing?  All I want
mythtv to do is record a signal (interlaced since it's standard NTSC)
and play it back exactly as it would have been sent to the TV directly;
so that means recorded interlaced and played back, interlaced.  Now that
may (or most likely) mean packing two interlaced fields into a frame,
but the video card should display the fields interlaced, one after the
other.
Which it can, but unless you are using production-quality hardware 
with video genlocking, what you record will not be exactly synced with 
what you get out.
I am trying to get the modeline right for my TV set so that I can start 
using my homebrew VGA to RGB converter. I made it because CRT-1 output 
(ie. the VGA connector) IS capable of outputting interlaced material. It 
seems that all you nVidia owners forget that their vsync is controlled 
by OpenGL, which in fact is not supported on every video card in Linux.

Oh and deinterlacing using bobdeint sucks donkey balls without vsync.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Greg Cope

So what chipsets/cards do ouput interlaced?

Greg
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

Actually, the 5200 *does* have an mpeg-2 decoder on the card.
This was confirmed by a couple users onthis list a few months ago.
Also, nVidia has stated that the FX series cards are equipped
with mpeg-2 decoders.  I believe the drivers take advantage of
that as well.
OK... I learn something new everyday.  Can it do HD-res decoding?
-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread PAUL WILLIAMSON

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/16/2005 9:12:54 AM 
 Actually, the 5200 *does* have an mpeg-2 decoder on the card.
 This was confirmed by a couple users onthis list a few months ago.
 Also, nVidia has stated that the FX series cards are equipped
 with mpeg-2 decoders.  I believe the drivers take advantage of
 that as well.

   OK... I learn something new everyday.  Can it do HD-res
decoding?

-Cory

Not sure, but I'll post to the list when I get enough fundage together
to 
purchase an air2pc card and an HDTV Ready monitor.  

...now if I could just find some more stuff to ebay... ;-)

Paul

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

Brian J. Murrell wrote:

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 08:28 -0500, Donavan Stanley wrote:

So rather than follow established terminology you invent your own and
expect everyone else to follow along? Pretty much everyone understand
that an OSD refers to UI that's overlayed on the video rather than
generic GUIs, except those that need to justify the fact that they've
been talking out their ass.

Just to defend against your claims that "my" definition of OSD is out of
my ass and contrary to what "everyone" thinks it is would a definition
from the wikipedia be good enough for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-screen_display
Or perhaps they are talking out of their ass too?

Seems that people in this forum posting (3rd one down specifically)
http://forums.sage.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=fefe6362a1567350a062a780e7293b72p=86769#post86769 don't count in your survey of "everyone" above either.

So my use of OSD is not really "so wrong" and your definition of
"everyone" is not so much really _every_ one.

Stop wining dude, if you have some useful input then post it. But don't
go scrutinizing people's interpretations of concepts or forcing your
interpretation on others. Better use common sense and unambiguous
terminology to express your meanings instead. In my opinion, this list
is ment to be informative and inspiring towards new developments.

-- Jeroen

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

That is true, for most, but not for the g400 -- with DirectFB.  I
understand what you are saying about the unknown (rather undocumented)
internal operations, but one of the DirectFB developers did some great
work for the g400 and utilized it's tv-encoder as it is supposed to be,
producing a perfectly timed, interlaced, overscanned output that looks
_exactly_ like TV.  No tearing, no interlacing artifacts -- none of
that.
	Some of them can suck less, and may in fact be quite good.  What I 
am saying is that unless you run a genlocked, synchronous 29.97 resolution 
with a 1:1 pixel-mapped input/output characteristic (i.e. the concept of 
overscanned and underscanned make no sense), it is *NOT* unprocessed. 
Nobody without big budgets and expensive proprietary cards can accomplish 
that.  Everything else is a matter of degree on how much fudging gets 
done.

But you can.  I have done so for years using another PVR application
that could utilize DirectFB and g400 in tv-out mode.  Encoding artifacts
aside, it was TV-picture perfect.  You could flip between tv and the
signal going through the g400 and they were identical in smoothness and
picture size.
	Sounds like the fudging was minimized with that arrangement of 
software.  It's still being fudged, however, so it's not perfect and 
unadulterated, sync-issue-free playing.

 	Get thee to google for g400 tvout setup.
Been there, done that.  Nobody seems to want (or able to achieve)
picture perfect output.  There seems to be a lot of satisfaction with
taking an ntsc signal and displaying it scaled to 800x600 on the
framebuffer.  That seems to be the state of the art with
x11/framebuffer/matroxset.  Sad thing is that it can look so much
better.
	You can't get perfect, but I agree that upscaling NTSC 480 line up 
to 800x600 and then having the encoder chip descale it back is rather 
silly.  At least start with an YYYx480 resolution modeline.

	Other than that, I've got no MGA card that's modern enough to even 
do Xv.  Can't help with that.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I just recently found out that the TV-out of SiS chipsets (many, many HTPC 
barebones use them) are not capable of outputting interlaced material. Quite 
an important thing if you want picture perfect I'd say. I am trying to get 
the modeline right
	That cannot be correct, since TVOUT is defined to be interlaced. 
Now, if you meant to say that it cannot play both fields of a interlaced 
content, I may believe that.  I've got an NVidia card (MX-400) with such a 
horrendously crappy tvout chip on it, the most I ever see is 240 lines. 
The chip just plain blows chunks.

	For future reference, the following issues need to be taken into 
account (almost without exception):
- The TVOut of regular VGA cards use a separate chip (or integrated into 
the GPU) to do the same thing as an scanline converter.  Thus, they 
generally do temporal and spatial resampling to make the square peg of 
the computer-generated video fit into the round hole of an NTSC|PAL 
compliant video signal.
- Modelines on such cards are only loosely related to the TVout video 
output.  Tweaking things like over/underscan, interlacing, refresh rates, 
resolutions, etc are all filterd through the tvout chip of the above note.

I am trying to get the modeline right for my TV set so that I can start using 
my homebrew VGA to RGB converter. I made it because CRT-1 output (ie. the VGA 
connector) IS capable of outputting interlaced material. It seems that all 
you nVidia owners forget that their vsync is controlled by OpenGL, which in 
fact is not supported on every video card in Linux.

	I'm now finally curious as to what VGA-RGB converter you are 
doing.  VGA *is* RGB... unless it's just a cable to make it DB-15 
(old-school 15-pin macintosh video connector) as opposed to H-DB-15 
(15-pin VGA connector).  What are you driving?

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 09:52 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   Some of them can suck less, and may in fact be quite good.  What I 
 am saying is that unless you run a genlocked, synchronous 29.97 resolution 
 with a 1:1 pixel-mapped input/output characteristic

So, before we get into another syntax pissing contest and i am told I am
talking out of my ass again, what exactly do you mean by genlocked,
synchronous 29.97 resolution with a 1:1 pixel-mapped input/output
characteristic?

If you mean that the signal is encoded by the video card to the
television exactly as it would have been by the original broadcast,
(i.e. field interlaced, correctly timed with the picture the exact same
size as it would have been originally) then yes, the g400 can do that.

  (i.e. the concept of 
 overscanned and underscanned make no sense),

Only in as much as you see exactly the same amount of the picture coming
from the recorded version of the content that you would have seen if you
watched it live.

For example, if I watch a capture of CNN through the g400 using x11 on
the framebuffer hacked with matroxset, I see more of the picture than I
would see watching live broadcast television.  The ticker at the bottom
has a significant amount of picture underneath it.  If I watch CNN live,
I don't see the picture underneath the ticker and the ticker runs pretty
much (within a scanline or two) along the bottom edge of my television.

If I watch that same capture through the g400 using DirectFB's TV-Out,
it looks _exactly_ like it would watching it live.  I see exactly the
same amount of the image as I would have watching it live.

  it is *NOT* unprocessed. 
 Nobody without big budgets and expensive proprietary cards can accomplish 
 that.  Everything else is a matter of degree on how much fudging gets 
 done.

As far as my eye can see (and I see a lot of the artifacts that people
around me watching do not see because they don't know what to look for),
it's visually unprocessed.  It looks exactly like it would have looked
live -- size, viewable portion, smoothness, etc.

As far as how the picture looks, I can take some stills with my digicam
to demonstrate what I mean if you like.  You will see the difference
between live and x11/framebuffer/matroxset hacked.  You won't with
DirectFB.

   You can't get perfect,

But I can.  When I get a moment today (i.e. get a moment when somebody
is not watching something), I will do a capture and take some stills
describing exactly what I am talking about above and post links to the
pics here.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Donavan Stanley

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:25:31 -0500, Brian J. Murrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Just to defend against your claims that my definition of OSD is out of
 my ass and contrary to what everyone thinks it is would a definition
 from the wikipedia be good enough for you?
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-screen_display
 Or perhaps they are talking out of their ass too?

That wikipedia definition applies to VCRs and the like.  Were using
the display was a spiffy new feature.  If one to use your definition
of OSD we could just shorten it to D since it's all on the screen. 
Why bother with the on screen portion at all?

This isn't a Myth convention it's used widely by the users and
developers of multimedia/HTPC apps to indicate the portions of the GUI
that are overlaid on the video vs the user interface that gets
displayed when no video is being played.  And even it it wasn't widely
used, it's STILL used in that context within Myth.

Hey let's all play a fun game, let's all start calling books on paper
displays and get all pissy when someone says what the fuck are you
talking about?.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Ryszard

 
 Hey let's all play a fun game, let's all start calling books on paper
 displays and get all pissy when someone says what the fuck are you
 talking about?.
 

roflmao... :-) chuckle, chortle and all that.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Joseph A. Caputo

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 10:03, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
 I've got an NVidia card (MX-400) with such a 
 horrendously crappy tvout chip on it, the most I ever see is 240 
 lines.  
 The chip just plain blows chunks.

Cory, just curious, what TV encoder chip does your Nvidia card use?  My 
old LeadTek GF4MX-420 card used an NV17 TV encoder and the output was 
beautiful.  That card has since died and I'm now using the onboard 
GF4MX-440 from my Chaintech 7NIF-2 nForce2 boards, which uses an NV18 
TV encoder, and, to quote you, it simply blows chunks.  You're about 
the only other person I've ever heard speak of Nvidia TV-out that way, 
so I was just wondering if you also had the newer chip.

-JAC
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Greg Estabrooks

 But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for me to get either
 card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is $230 for me from my

 Dude,  check out Staples.  They regularly sell the 250's for $149 CDN.

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Michael J. Lynch

Jeroen Brosens wrote:
snip
.
I must disappoint you here; first of all I have massive respect to 
Thomas Winischhofer, the developer/maintainer of the X driver for SiS 
chipsets, he has a well documented website on which he elaboralety 
describes every driver option that he squeezed out of the SiS chips. 
In the FAQ however, I only recently stumbled upon this:

* Q: Why does output of interlaced video via TV show a comb-like
  interlace-effect? If the source material is interlaced and the
  TV output is interlaced, shouldn't this match?
* A: CRT2 does not support interlace. Therefore, the driver can't
  feed interlaced output into the video bridge (which handles TV
  output, be it a SiS video bridge, be it a Chrontel TV encoder).
  The video bridge can only convert a progressive scan
  (=non-interlaced) input into TV-suitable interlaced output. The
  driver can neither change this nor control which of the frames
  sent to the bridge is the even/odd field. Long story short: If
  you want to output interlaced material on your TV without using
  a software de-interlacer, you need to add a proper Modeline for
  interlaced PAL/NTSC timing (easily found on the internet) and an
  external VGA-to-TV converter connected to CRT1. Otherwise you
  have to use a software de-interlacer.
You have to acknowledge that is is a Very Bad Thing®. What I said 
about the interlaced material is not entirely true, but the result is 
still not quite useful. Damn bastards @ SiS. Oh well.

Cory, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jeroen has mis-interpreted 
the answer
here.  It does *not* say that TV-OUT does not do interlace mode.  It 
says that
CRT2 doesn't support feeding interlace to the the TV encoder.  That has 
nothing
to do with whether or not TV-OUT then interlaces output.

--
Michael J. Lynch
What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about -- author unknown
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Thom Paine

On Wed, 2005-16-02 at 11:40 -0400, Greg Estabrooks wrote:
  But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for me to get either
  card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is $230 for me from my
 
  Dude,  check out Staples.  They regularly sell the 250's for $149 CDN.

Sweet.

I'll grab one of them as well.

I think I still want the 350.

BestBuy was the only place I've seen them so far.

-=/Thom


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

Michael J. Lynch wrote:
Jeroen Brosens wrote:
snip
I must disappoint you here; first of all I have massive respect to 
Thomas Winischhofer, the developer/maintainer of the X driver for SiS 
chipsets, he has a well documented website on which he elaboralety 
describes every driver option that he squeezed out of the SiS chips. 
In the FAQ however, I only recently stumbled upon this:

* Q: Why does output of interlaced video via TV show a comb-like
  interlace-effect? If the source material is interlaced and the
  TV output is interlaced, shouldn't this match?
* A: CRT2 does not support interlace. Therefore, the driver can't
  feed interlaced output into the video bridge (which handles TV
  output, be it a SiS video bridge, be it a Chrontel TV encoder).
  The video bridge can only convert a progressive scan
  (=non-interlaced) input into TV-suitable interlaced output. The
  driver can neither change this nor control which of the frames
  sent to the bridge is the even/odd field. Long story short: If
  you want to output interlaced material on your TV without using
  a software de-interlacer, you need to add a proper Modeline for
  interlaced PAL/NTSC timing (easily found on the internet) and an
  external VGA-to-TV converter connected to CRT1. Otherwise you
  have to use a software de-interlacer.
You have to acknowledge that is is a Very Bad Thing®. What I said 
about the interlaced material is not entirely true, but the result is 
still not quite useful. Damn bastards @ SiS. Oh well.

Cory, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jeroen has mis-interpreted 
the answer
here.  It does *not* say that TV-OUT does not do interlace mode.  It 
says that
CRT2 doesn't support feeding interlace to the the TV encoder.  That 
has nothing
to do with whether or not TV-OUT then interlaces output.

OK true; of course everything coming out of a TV-out is interlaced, 
nothing doubtful there. But it seems it can't tell field sync etc. from 
the signal that is being fed to the video bridge. And therefore I must 
either use the bob deinterlacer (others suck because they don't give 
full frame rate) but it, well, bobs (vertical jitter due to goin out of 
vsync every now and then). Maybe when my VGA-SCART cable works with X 
everything is sorted, but I will have to find a proper modeline for that.

-- Jeroen
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut





Tom Hughes wrote:
snip
  Well I've got a Leadtek Winfast A180BT GeForce MX4000 which is NV18
and the TV encoder on that certainly blows chunks. I'm using a sync
converter on the VGA output to drive a RGB input on the TV now so I
don't care, but when I tried the S-Video output it was horrible.

Tom

  

Tom, I just finished my vga2scart cable, from the circuit as explained
on the site that is linked on the mythtv page of your website (http://www.nexusuk.org/projects/vga2scart/).
Now I have to find the modeline to get a nice image; are you a PAL
user, and if yes, could you explain what you did to get it working
correctly? My tv image is now scrolling up/down and skewing a bit too.
It definately needs the proper tuning, but what could be the best way
to do it? Many thanks,

-- Jeroen


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Joseph A. Caputo

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 11:09, Tom Hughes wrote:
 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Joseph A. Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Cory, just curious, what TV encoder chip does your Nvidia card use?  
  My  
  old LeadTek GF4MX-420 card used an NV17 TV encoder and the output 
  was  
  beautiful.  That card has since died and I'm now using the onboard 
  GF4MX-440 from my Chaintech 7NIF-2 nForce2 boards, which uses an 
  NV18  
  TV encoder, and, to quote you, it simply blows chunks.  You're 
  about  
  the only other person I've ever heard speak of Nvidia TV-out that 
  way,  
  so I was just wondering if you also had the newer chip.
 
 Well I've got a Leadtek Winfast A180BT GeForce MX4000 which is NV18
 and the TV encoder on that certainly blows chunks. I'm using a sync
 converter on the VGA output to drive a RGB input on the TV now so I
 don't care, but when I tried the S-Video output it was horrible.
 
 Tom

Thanks, it's nice to have another data point.  Wish I had another 
option; unfortunately my TV only has composite in, so it's either a new 
TV or an expensive scan converter, and I don't have the budget for 
either right now.  I'm sending my card with the NV17 chip in for RMA; 
maybe I'll be able to use that again someday.

-JAC
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Tom Hughes

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeroen Brosens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Tom Hughes wrote:

 snip

Well I've got a Leadtek Winfast A180BT GeForce MX4000 which is NV18
and the TV encoder on that certainly blows chunks. I'm using a sync
converter on the VGA output to drive a RGB input on the TV now so I
don't care, but when I tried the S-Video output it was horrible.

 Tom, I just finished my vga2scart cable, from the circuit as explained
 on the site that is linked on the mythtv page of your website
 (http://www.nexusuk.org/projects/vga2scart/). Now I have to find the
 modeline to get a nice image; are you a PAL user, and if yes, could
 you explain what you did to get it working correctly? My tv image is
 now scrolling up/down and skewing a bit too. It definately needs the
 proper tuning, but what could be the best way to do it? Many thanks,

The mode lines I'm using are:

ModeLine 704x576pali 13.6 704 728 792 872 576 581 586 625 -hsync 
-vsync interlace
ModeLine 720x576pali 13.9 720 744 808 888 576 581 586 625 -hsync 
-vsync interlace

They seem to work OK on my set - scrolling up/down certainly indicates
some sort of sync/timing problem anyway.

Make sure you've wired to the correct pin on the SCART as well. I got
it wrong the first time and connected to the sync out pin instead of
the sync in so the TV wasn't getting the proper sync.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

That cannot be correct, since TVOUT is defined to be interlaced. Now, 
if you meant to say that it cannot play both fields of a interlaced 
content, I may believe that.  I've got an NVidia card (MX-400) with such a 
horrendously crappy tvout chip on it, the most I ever see is 240 lines. 
The chip just plain blows chunks.
I must disappoint you here; first of all I have massive respect to Thomas 
Winischhofer, the developer/maintainer of the X driver for SiS chipsets, he 
has a well documented website on which he elaboralety describes every driver 
option that he squeezed out of the SiS chips. In the FAQ however, I only 
recently stumbled upon this:

  * Q: Why does output of interlaced video via TV show a comb-like
interlace-effect? If the source material is interlaced and the
TV output is interlaced, shouldn't this match?
  * A: CRT2 does not support interlace. Therefore, the driver can't
feed interlaced output into the video bridge (which handles TV
output, be it a SiS video bridge, be it a Chrontel TV encoder).
The video bridge can only convert a progressive scan
(=non-interlaced) input into TV-suitable interlaced output. The
driver can neither change this nor control which of the frames
sent to the bridge is the even/odd field. Long story short: If you
want to output interlaced material on your TV without using a
software de-interlacer, you need to add a proper Modeline for
interlaced PAL/NTSC timing (easily found on the internet) and an
external VGA-to-TV converter connected to CRT1. Otherwise you have
to use a software de-interlacer.
You have to acknowledge that is is a Very Bad Thing®. What I said about the 
interlaced material is not entirely true, but the result is still not quite 
useful. Damn bastards @ SiS. Oh well.
	We said the same thing, only in a slightly different way.  It 
sounds like the SiS chipset is indeed broken in that respect... that it 
cannot even send the tvout chip a interlaced feed.  Thus, he's saying you 
need to deinterlace it to put it into the framebuffer only to have the 
tvout chip use every other line anyway... so it's a 30-60-30 Hz 
conversion (or for you apparently 25-50-25 if you're doing SCART=PAL?)

You are of course right, what I meant was: I made a VGA (D-sub 15) to RGB 
(Euro-AV/SCART) converter cable so I can plug it directly in the TV using 
seperate R, G, B and composite sync signals, as opposed to CVBS or S-Video 
input from the TV-out. I can produce a nice list of HOWTO links if you are 
interested.
(Side note: ATI and Matrox cards output composite sync already, all other 
cards have seperate Hsync and Vsync and need this converter.)

	OK... that makes sense.  So your converter basically consists of 
routing RGB where the belong, and combining the H/V sync as necessary?  I 
have messed with composite sync, sync-on-green, interlacing, funky 
dotclocks, etc a fair bit in the past.  My previous experience (Millenium 
and G-100) was that Matrox was second to none as far as weird options 
supported.  Not sure if it's true anymore.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Greg Miller

This is the most interesting thread I've followed for a long time. For what
it's worth I am running Mythtv with DVB in Canada and gave up on getting
good quality s-video out. I also have an Expressvu PVR that gives Excellent
picture quality and it has become the benchmark. The problem with the PVR is
that it is a piece of junk and only records based on a timed event. In an
attempt to get decent quality video from Mythtv I went and bought a used
Xbox ($139CDN) and loaded up a frontend. It is a little slow (only 64mb
memory) and the picture quality is pretty good (way better that the nVidia
5600 and ATI Radeon 9200 I tried) but not as good as the PVR.

I find it quite amazing that High Quality S-Video is so difficult to
achieve.

Greg

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005
 

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:21 -0700, Greg Miller wrote:
 This is the most interesting thread I've followed for a long time. For what
 it's worth I am running Mythtv with DVB in Canada

How are you capturing the DVB signal in Canada?  Expressvu is
(apparently) encrypted with a nagrivision variant which (according to my
research at the time) is not decodable.  I know some folks were working
on it (at the time of my previous research) but had not gotten anywhere.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Thom Paine

On Wed, 2005-16-02 at 12:26 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 10:21 -0700, Greg Miller wrote:
  This is the most interesting thread I've followed for a long time. For what
  it's worth I am running Mythtv with DVB in Canada
 
 How are you capturing the DVB signal in Canada?  Expressvu is
 (apparently) encrypted with a nagrivision variant which (according to my
 research at the time) is not decodable.  I know some folks were working
 on it (at the time of my previous research) but had not gotten anywhere.
 

I'd like to know as well, but I would venture a guess that the expressvu
is feeding the mythbox, and you either have to control the channel with
the built in event timer found on 3100's or you run two instances of the
lirc and you have myth change the channel.

Feel free to email me off list if you have another way. I'm most
interested.

Thanks.

-=/Thom


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Joel Anderson

  But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for me to get either
  card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is $230 for me from my
 
 Dude,  check out Staples.  They regularly sell the 250's for $149 CDN.

Best Buy and Future Shop also have them on sale quite frequently for
that price, both in-store and online.  Just picked one up last week at
Best Buy to replace my POS second card (m179).  ;)

-- 
Joel
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Alex Harford

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:31:08 -0500, Thom Paine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Feel free to email me off list if you have another way. I'm most
 interested.

Please don't take it off the list, there are lots of us who are interested. :)

Alex
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

So, before we get into another syntax pissing contest and i am told I am
talking out of my ass again, what exactly do you mean by genlocked,
synchronous 29.97 resolution with a 1:1 pixel-mapped input/output
characteristic?
If you mean that the signal is encoded by the video card to the
television exactly as it would have been by the original broadcast,
(i.e. field interlaced, correctly timed with the picture the exact same
size as it would have been originally) then yes, the g400 can do that.
	I'm not trying to be belligerent, just trying to clarify the 
common misconceptions about tvout cards and why the concent of a perfect 
output is for the most part impossible with consumer cards.

	When I'm saying perfect, I'm talking about an end-to-end system 
with pixel-clock synchronization every step of the way.  The system would 
have to do the following:

- Cable company sends broadcast quality video down the wire.
- Capture card synchronizes (via a PLL) to the color-subcarrier and 
samples the pixels at an integer multiple of it. (i.e. genlocked capture 
for 1:1 pixel mapping and synchronous sampling)
- MPEG encoding/decoding is done buffered and stored to the drive.
- Playback would have to decode the MPEG, with enough buffers and 
time-base correction to insert any missing fields.
- Decoded fields would be put into the framebuffer phase-locked with the 
original color subcarrier frequency captured (which doesn't really make 
sense in a time-shifted world, since the notion of time is now defined to 
by the computer's internal clock)
- After this field is decoded and put into the vid card's framebuffer 
memory, the decoder would trigger the vid card to issue another field via 
a VSYNC.
- This RGB data would then be encoded according to the NTSC spec, with the 
color subcarrier phase-locked to the horizontal sync at frequency 262.5 
time x the horizontal frequency of 15.73kHz)
- The vid card would then wait until the next field was decoded before 
scanning again... unless the decode was never accomplished.  In that case 
the TBC-portion of the system would have to generate the missing field.

	In a real system, everything is clocked together... in a 
general-purpose computer like that, it cannot be guaranteed.  Thus, many 
things run at their own clock (close, but not phase-locked and often not 
even frequency-locked).

 	You can't get perfect,
But I can.  When I get a moment today (i.e. get a moment when somebody
is not watching something), I will do a capture and take some stills
describing exactly what I am talking about above and post links to the
pics here.
	That's not necessary... I believe you.  I do not agree that 
cannot visually see a difference equivalent to perfect, however.  My 
own card that I build for VGA-NTSC was as close to perfect as one could 
get (or so I thought).  A few months back I had a discussion with another 
guy on here who corrected me on the fact that my HCLOCK was 
(strictly-speaking) not phase-locked to the multile of the color 
subcarrier... thus it wasn't perfect.  Nevermind the fact that I can get 
higher resolution on my TV from my computer than through a high-quality 
DVD player... it's still not standards-compliant and perfect.

I grow weary of this :)
-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

Cory, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jeroen has mis-interpreted the 
answer
here.  It does *not* say that TV-OUT does not do interlace mode.  It says 
that
CRT2 doesn't support feeding interlace to the the TV encoder.  That has 
nothing
to do with whether or not TV-OUT then interlaces output.

--
	I do not think you're wrong... I think that's the correct way to 
interpret that information.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

OK true; of course everything coming out of a TV-out is interlaced, nothing 
doubtful there. But it seems it can't tell field sync etc. from the signal 
that is being fed to the video bridge. And therefore I must either use the 
bob deinterlacer (others suck because they don't give full frame rate) but 
it, well, bobs (vertical jitter due to goin out of vsync every now and then). 
Maybe when my VGA-SCART cable works with X everything is sorted, but I will 
have to find a proper modeline for that.

	Then you'll be in my boat.  Close, but no cigar.  Actually, last 
night I turned off deinterlacing and couldn't see the tearing I had with 
the ATI card.  Maybe all is well with the world now (and not wasting cpu 
deinterlacing to reinterlace).

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Joseph A. Caputo

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:29, PAUL WILLIAMSON wrote:
 
 I am surprised to hear about all these horror stories of s-video 
 being so bad.  I've done s-video on an MX440 and an FX5200 
 plus, both with excellent results.  The s-video out on my 
 mediamvp is pretty good, but there is definitely a difference 
 between that and my other two frontends.

Seems like the latest generation of Nvidia TV-encoder chip (NV18) has 
significantly poorer output than the previous NV17 or Philips encoders 
used in previous generations.

[snip]

 Am I just lucky?

Yep; lucky to have a card with a 'good' tv encoder.

-JAC
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 10:03, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I've got an NVidia card (MX-400) with such a
horrendously crappy tvout chip on it, the most I ever see is 240
lines.
The chip just plain blows chunks.
Cory, just curious, what TV encoder chip does your Nvidia card use?  My
old LeadTek GF4MX-420 card used an NV17 TV encoder and the output was
beautiful.  That card has since died and I'm now using the onboard
GF4MX-440 from my Chaintech 7NIF-2 nForce2 boards, which uses an NV18
TV encoder, and, to quote you, it simply blows chunks.  You're about
the only other person I've ever heard speak of Nvidia TV-out that way,
so I was just wondering if you also had the newer chip.
	I thought I'd be clever and get the VIVO one (this was 3 years 
ago).  It uses the SAA7108, which from the datasheet is limited to 288 
lines IIRC.  I've actually talked with an NVIDIA engineering guy who 
explained how some of the newer ones work.  They sound *much* better... 
and go to a more hard-coded tvout when using an appropriate size (e.g. 
720x480)

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Greg Miller




I know that discussion regarding decrypting DVB feeds is not 
allowed here. All the info you need is hereplease do not email me asking how to do 
it. My system is not running 100% yet and I am considering getting a PVR 350 and 
connecting it to my Mythtv box. 

Good Luck.

Greg

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex HarfordSent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:38 
AMTo: Discussion about mythtvSubject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs 
FX-5200 TVOut
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:31:08 -0500, Thom Paine 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Feel free to email me off list if you have another 
way. I'm most  interested.
Please don't take it off the list, there are lots of us who are 
interested. :)
Alex



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005
 

  
Blank Bkgrd.gif___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 12:40 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   That's not necessary... I believe you.  I do not agree that 
 cannot visually see a difference equivalent to perfect, however.

Maybe this is so, but what do I really care beyond it looks perfect?
Which I can get with the G400 and DirectFB.  I have yet to see anything
even close with the G400 X11/framebuffer/matroxset.

This winds up devolving into similar discussions about harmonic
perfection.  What do I care if an audio signal is less than perfect
beyond the range that I/we can hear?

Oh, and I tried to use your ntsc modeline and got an error from X saying
hsync out of range.  My Monitor configuration is:

Section Monitor
Identifier  Monitor0
Option  DPMS true
#HorizSync  28.0 - 78.0 # Warning: This may fry very old Monitors
HorizSync   28.0 - 96.0 # Warning: This may fry old Monitors
VertRefresh 50.0 - 76.0 # Very conservative. May flicker.
DisplaySize 655 490 # mm
# These are some Modelines that happen to work on many systems
# Especially the 1024x768 has been thoroughly tested, even on Laptops
Modeline640x480   25.175 640 664 760 800   480 491 493 525 #60Hz
Modeline800x600   40.12  800 848 968 1056  600 601 605 628 #60Hz
ModeLinecoryntsci 14.3 720 760 824 910 480 484 492 525 interlace

EndSection

Do I not also need a corresponding set of framebuffer timings to match
the X Modeline?  It was the framebuffer timings that I was referring to
before when I said that one set of timings at a given resolution does
not seem to work from one card to another.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Isaac Richards

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 07:31 am, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 Exactly.  I never said that the OSD needed to know about vsync.  I said
 video playback needed to know about vsync.  The OSD still needs to be
 able to display in a manner that is compatible with the video card's
 TV-Out mode, and for the G400, the only true replication of video
 broadcast display I have seen available is with DirectFB, which means
 that if you want to use DirectFB's CRTC2 TV-out for video display you
 also have to use that for the OSD display since using the
 X11/framebuffer TV-out (i.e. using the matroxfb_maven kernel module and
 matroxset) is mutually exclusive with using DirectFB.

http://qt-directfb.sourceforge.net/story.html (though, the port is a tad old).

Mutually exclusive. =)  Besides, I thought you could run normal X apps on 
DirectFB through an emulation layer?

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 13:41 -0500, Isaac Richards wrote:
 
 Main video output loop is in NuppelVideoPlayer.cpp (OutputVideoLoop), which 
 uses classes in vsync.cpp for that information.

Sweet!  Thanks for the pointer!

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 13:45 -0500, Isaac Richards wrote:
 
 Sounds like a driver limitation if you can't adjust the amount of overscan or 
 set it to unscaled mode in X

Exactly.  No argument here.  I think the base of the whole problem is
that the matrox framebuffer driver does not put the card into it's true
tv-encoder mode.  I have already asked the g400 guru on the DirectFB dev
list what the possibility of doing the correct register twiddling (i.e.
that he does in DirectFB) in the framebuffer driver itself would be.
Awaiting response.

 Myth _can_ adjust for that, though, by fiddling with the overscan settings in 
 the playback options.  Not as good as passing things through completely 
 unscaled, but the displayed area would at least be right.

Right.  This is the real crux of the problem.  I don't really care that
I see a bit more of the picture -- the part that is normally overscanned
out of the viewable area, but it's all of the scaling up and then back
down that goes on that is visually unappealing.  It's that that I have
been unable to find a solution for using X11 and the framebuffer.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Tim Fenn

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:27:29PM -0800, Scott Alfter wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:21:17PM -0800, Tim Fenn wrote:
  As an addendum, many newer TVs (particularly HD) tend to support DVI
  input - has anyone used this successfully, and more importantly, with
  good results?
 
 It works great on the 30 widescreen LCD I'm using...all it took was a
 modeline to generate 1280x768 (native resolution).  
 

How about 1080i?  From what I understand, that hasn't been achieved
via DVI (although nvidia supports it, I haven't heard a success story
regarding it yet - driver problem?).

-Tim

-- 
Morals?  I eat communism and $h!t America, brother.  --Seanbaby
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

Maybe this is so, but what do I really care beyond it looks perfect?
Which I can get with the G400 and DirectFB.  I have yet to see anything
even close with the G400 X11/framebuffer/matroxset.
	For what most of us are trying to do (view it on a tv), it doesn't 
matter that much.  I'm clarifying the notion of a perfect signal.  Also, 
there are many times when some pieces of electronic equipment may not 
accept a signal that looks perfect, since it doesn't strictly adhere to 
the spec.

Oh, and I tried to use your ntsc modeline and got an error from X saying
hsync out of range.  My Monitor configuration is:
   HorizSync   28.0 - 96.0 # Warning: This may fry old Monitors
	I'm not surprised.  That's X protecting you from yourself.  That 
modeline runs at 480i frequencies and is meant to be displayed directly 
on a TV.  It has a 15.7kHz horizontal frequency.  In your case, you have a 
VGA monitor connected and have (correctly) limited the minimum frequency 
to 28kHz.  If you change that to 15kHz, X won't prevent you from using 
that frequency due to H frequency mismatch.  It also will most likely not 
work with your VGA monitor and in fact may damage it.

You initially asked for:
Do you have a modeline that sets a proper ntsc resolution and timing?
720/640x480 @ 59.9[sic] cycles/s?
	That is what the modeline I provided does.  Proper NTSC resolution 
and timing with 720x480 visible resolution at 15.7kHz Horiz, 29.97Hz 
vertical.

Do I not also need a corresponding set of framebuffer timings to match
the X Modeline?  It was the framebuffer timings that I was referring to
before when I said that one set of timings at a given resolution does
not seem to work from one card to another.
A modeline *defines* the framebuffer timings.
-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 14:13 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   I'm not surprised.  That's X protecting you from yourself.  That 
 modeline runs at 480i frequencies and is meant to be displayed directly 
 on a TV.

That's what I have.  My TV is plugged directly into my video card with a
connector that Matrox makes for doing that.

   It has a 15.7kHz horizontal frequency.  In your case, you have a 
 VGA monitor connected and have (correctly) limited the minimum frequency 
 to 28kHz.

Ahhh.  Indeed.

 If you change that to 15kHz, X won't prevent you from using 
 that frequency due to H frequency mismatch.  It also will most likely not 
 work with your VGA monitor and in fact may damage it.

But I have a TV hooked up, so prob(?).

 
   You initially asked for:
 Do you have a modeline that sets a proper ntsc resolution and timing?
 720/640x480 @ 59.9[sic] cycles/s?
 
   That is what the modeline I provided does.  Proper NTSC resolution 
 and timing with 720x480 visible resolution at 15.7kHz Horiz, 29.97Hz 
 vertical.

I will try it.

  Do I not also need a corresponding set of framebuffer timings to match
  the X Modeline?  It was the framebuffer timings that I was referring to
  before when I said that one set of timings at a given resolution does
  not seem to work from one card to another.
 
   A modeline *defines* the framebuffer timings.

So the Xserver Modeline is a substitute for the timings usually set with
fbset/fb.modes?  That I did not know.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

That's what I have.  My TV is plugged directly into my video card with a
connector that Matrox makes for doing that.
	Funky... I haven't heard of that matrox-ism.  Is it connected to 
an S-vid or Composite port or something else (DVI, RGB, component)?  If 
the former, than it's really just a tvout in sheep's clothing... :)  (i.e. 
Matrox made a dongle required to get tvout of their cards)

If you change that to 15kHz, X won't prevent you from using
that frequency due to H frequency mismatch.  It also will most likely not
work with your VGA monitor and in fact may damage it.
But I have a TV hooked up, so prob(?).
	It may or may not.  Depends on above.
I will try it.
If you melt your stuff, you've been warned!
 	A modeline *defines* the framebuffer timings.
So the Xserver Modeline is a substitute for the timings usually set with
fbset/fb.modes?  That I did not know.
	Not a substitute so much as an equivalent representation of the 
same information.  They both define the raster on the screen (visible, 
nonvisible, and sync).

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-16 Thread Martin Ebourne

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 15:00 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   Funky... I haven't heard of that matrox-ism.  Is it connected to 
 an S-vid or Composite port or something else (DVI, RGB, component)?  If 
 the former, than it's really just a tvout in sheep's clothing... :)  (i.e. 
 Matrox made a dongle required to get tvout of their cards)

Plugs into the vga port of the second head, splits it into svideo and
composite. I think it must tweak something on the card to disable the
vga because it's a plain cable, no circuitry.

Cheers,

Martin.


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 15:00 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
 
   Funky... I haven't heard of that matrox-ism.  Is it connected to 
 an S-vid or Composite port or something else (DVI, RGB, component)?

It plugs into the 2nd head 15pin standard vga connector on the card and
has svideo and composite on the other end.  That is for a G400 standard
(in the bedroom computer) and the other option is for the G400 with the
MJPEG junk in it and that is a whole break-out box with composite,
s-video and audio connectors on it.

 If 
 the former, than it's really just a tvout in sheep's clothing... :)  (i.e. 
 Matrox made a dongle required to get tvout of their cards)

Could be.  Not sure what it is exactly under the plastic moulding, and
of course the other device, the whole breakout box, who knows.

   If you melt your stuff, you've been warned!

:-)

Didn't work unfortunately.  I got an error in the console log from the
matroxfb driver that it could not set 720 so used 736 instead.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 20:14 +, Martin Ebourne wrote:
 
 I did get that running 6 months ago. Certainly myth completely through
 XDirectFB is no good because it doesn't support Xv.

But you don't need Xv if DirectFB puts the card into TV-Out mode and
then XDirectFB uses layer 2 (it's this last part that I'm not sure will
work or not).  You need this in your directfbrc:

matrox-crtc2
matrox-tv-standard=ntsc

And possibly the following could be used to make XDirectFB use the CRTC2
layer:

primary-layer=2

Then whether using the DirectFB output mode of mythtv will interfere
with the X11/Qt, who knows.  I am waiting direction from the directfb
list.

 I can't remember what was wrong with myth using XDirectFB for the UI and
 using plain directfb for the video. Sounds like a good combination, but
 I think I had segfaults and by then had wasted over a month on directfb
 already, so dropped it.
 
 Be interested to hear if you do get it working well. Also with mplayer
 etc. working for mythvideo.

Indeed.  mplayer -vo dfbmga mode is sweet.  I want mythtv to look as
good.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

It plugs into the 2nd head 15pin standard vga connector on the card and
has svideo and composite on the other end.  That is for a G400 standard
(in the bedroom computer) and the other option is for the G400 with the
MJPEG junk in it and that is a whole break-out box with composite,
s-video and audio connectors on it.
	So, it's a TVOUT, but it has one major difference... it's a second 
head that has its own refresh and modeline setup.  I wasn't aware that 
this was what was going on.  With that setup, if there's no scaling going 
on in the tvout part of the chip, it's possible generate a (relatively) 
exact modeline that's NTSC-correct.  It sounds like through the DirectFB 
framework that's possible, from what you say.

	All the rants before were assuming a normal tvout setup.  A VGA 
monitor plugged in, and a tvout chip (or part of the GPU) redoing the 
scaling.  In both cases, I stand by the decoding genlock thing... where 
the decoding of video fields needs to by synchronised to the hardware 
refresh.

 	If you melt your stuff, you've been warned!
:-)
Didn't work unfortunately.  I got an error in the console log from the
matroxfb driver that it could not set 720 so used 736 instead.
	The NVidia driver sometimes puts constraints on the modeline 
numbers to do hardware issues that made someone's silicon math easier. 
Not a multiple of 8 and things like that.  That might be the sort of 
thing you're running into there.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Alex Harford

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:34 -0500, Thom Paine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
 the FX-5200.

Depends on what you want to do with the frontend.  If you want to play
anything other than TV (that has not been transcoded) IMO the PVR-350
does not cut it.

Alex
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Thom Paine

On Tue, 2005-15-02 at 09:47 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
 On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:34 -0500, Thom Paine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
  the FX-5200.
 
 Depends on what you want to do with the frontend.  If you want to play
 anything other than TV (that has not been transcoded) IMO the PVR-350
 does not cut it.
 

I'd like to play DVD's, tv, recorded shows, that sort of thing.

So I'd be better off with the 350 in the backend only, or used with a
regular card with tv out?

Thanks.

-=/Thom


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread PAUL WILLIAMSON

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/15/2005 12:52:52 PM 
On Tue, 2005-15-02 at 09:47 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
 On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:34 -0500, Thom Paine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should
I use
  the FX-5200.
 
 Depends on what you want to do with the frontend.  If you want to
play
 anything other than TV (that has not been transcoded) IMO the
PVR-350
 does not cut it.
 

I'd like to play DVD's, tv, recorded shows, that sort of thing.

So I'd be better off with the 350 in the backend only, or used with a
regular card with tv out?

Thanks.

-=/Thom

You just wasted some cash.  Yes, you'd be better off with something 
like a 5200 that can do all kinds of hardware decoding, not just the 
TV-related stuff.

Paul

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Joe Votour

If you value quality over all else, then the PVR-350
(after sufficient tweaking of the GUI) is about the
best that you can get for S-Video or Composite output.

However, using the PVR-350 locks you only into viewing
MPEG-2 recordings.  You can get DVD playback working
with xine or mplayer, but it will really cause a CPU
hit, since it will be using a framebuffer.  I don't
know about MPEG-4 or RTJPEG recordings, because I have
dual PVR-x50's (one 250, one 350).  Also, you can
forget about MythGame/xmame, and some of the
visualizations in MythMusic.

I use an FX5200 for my TV output.  It works well for
everything, but there are some trade-offs to be made. 
If I don't use any deinterlacing filters (but use the
nvidia settings tool to turn on anti-aliasing), then
fast scrolling messages aren't too smooth (but
everything else is pretty good).  Enabling Bob fixes
this (in fact, with Bob, it's just about perfect), but
then some shows (notably cartoons where there's lots
of thin lines) are flickery.  There are none of these
issues with the PVR-350 output.

-- Joe

--- Thom Paine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I finally got my computer supplier to order me a
 PVR-350 card for my
 upcoming myth box.
 
 I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out
 to hook to my
 television.
 
 An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the
 pvr-350 or should I use
 the FX-5200.
 
 Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot
 point, as I plan to
 have a backend / front end system in the future.
 
 Thanks.
 
 -=/Thom
 
 
  ___
 mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org

http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 




__ 
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

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Ronald Kohsman

I concur with John.

Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

-r

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Kuhn
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i 
have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry 
and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it 
should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..

--John

I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
upcoming myth box.

I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
television.

An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I
use
the FX-5200.

Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
have a backend / front end system in the future.

Thanks.

-=/Thom


  

---
-

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
  


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:25 -0500, Ronald Kohsman wrote:
 I concur with John.
 
 Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

But that is done by sending the card MPEG2 right?  The card decodes the
mpeg2 and presumably sends it to the tele properly interlaced and
vsync'd?  Please tell me this is not done by rendering onto a window in
the Xserver (running on the framebuffer).

So if one's mythbox is transcoding recorded mpeg2 into nuv (mpeg4 isn't
it?) how does that work with the 350's expected mpeg2 input?

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Paul K

  I haven't tried other than the PVR350 and I cannot tell the difference
at all. But we only watch TV - Live or recorded.

Paul K

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronald Kohsman
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:25 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I concur with John.

Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

-r

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Kuhn
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i 
have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry 
and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it 
should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..

--John

I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my 
upcoming myth box.

I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my 
television.

An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I
use
the FX-5200.

Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to 
have a backend / front end system in the future.

Thanks.

-=/Thom

---
-

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org 
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Alex Harford

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:32:00 -0500, Brian J. Murrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Please tell me this is not done by rendering onto a window in
 the Xserver (running on the framebuffer).
 
 So if one's mythbox is transcoding recorded mpeg2 into nuv (mpeg4 isn't
 it?) how does that work with the 350's expected mpeg2 input?

Not very well, as it's using the framebuffer rather than the mpeg2 format.

Alex
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:38 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
 
 Not very well, as it's using the framebuffer rather than the mpeg2 format.

Ahhh.  So if the file is MEPG2, then it uses the MPEG2 decoder, but if
it's anything other it uses it like any old other framebuffer card?

The 350 can encode and decode simultaneously, no?  :-)

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Jeroen Brosens





Now use your video card's TV-out, enable Xv (which is generally
hardware accelerated) and set the resolution to 720x576 if you are in
PAL land or 720x480 for NTSC and use the bob deinterlacer. Now you have
the same fluid and smooth motion as TV with a sharp image. The trick
is, that the bob deinterlacer spits out frames at the same rate that
TV's do with fields (interlaced, half frames) while other deinterlacers
do not.

I understand that the 350 is terribly slow on other material thatn
MPEG-2 since it uses a frambuffer. So much for XviD/etc watching.

-- Jeroen

Ronald Kohsman wrote:

  I concur with John.

Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

-r

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Kuhn
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i 
have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry 
and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it 
should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..

--John

  
  
I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
upcoming myth box.

I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
television.

An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I

  
  use
  
  
the FX-5200.

Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
have a backend / front end system in the future.

Thanks.

-=/Thom


 

---

  
  -
  
  
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 


  
  
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


  
  

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
  




___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Alex Harford

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:41:49 -0500, Brian J. Murrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:38 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
 
  Not very well, as it's using the framebuffer rather than the mpeg2 format.
 
 Ahhh.  So if the file is MEPG2, then it uses the MPEG2 decoder, but if
 it's anything other it uses it like any old other framebuffer card?
 
 The 350 can encode and decode simultaneously, no?  :-)
 

Yes, but AFAIK you can't get at the encode side of the card unless
it's coming in from the tuner/svideo/composite input. :)

If the card could take raw data, I could use it to MPEG2 encode my DV
files that I grab from my video camera.  That would be cool!

Alex
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Jeroen Brosens wrote:
 Now use your video card's TV-out, enable Xv (which is generally
 hardware accelerated) and set the resolution to 720x576 if you are in
 PAL land or 720x480 for NTSC and use the bob deinterlacer. Now you
 have the same fluid and smooth motion as TV with a sharp image. The
 trick is, that the bob deinterlacer spits out frames at the same rate
 that TV's do with fields (interlaced, half frames) while other
 deinterlacers do not.

See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
methodology.  The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have.  Record the signal
exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.

So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
perfectly, field by field.  That is the only way to do it.

This is what DirectFB and the G400's TV-Out accomplishes.
Unfortunately, Myth's use of QT makes this impossible because QT does
not support DirectFB, or even SDL.  SDL would be satisfactory because
SDL supports drawing on a DirectFB surface.

b.





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread GreatOak

Could this be a licensing issue?

Meaning, the use of the encoder is licensed to Hauppauge. Just a
thought, I am not even sure if MPEG2 needs a license.

Just a thought.

~G

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:00 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:55 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
  
  Yes, but AFAIK you can't get at the encode side of the card unless
  it's coming in from the tuner/svideo/composite input. :)
 
 Ahh.  Right.  Forgot about that detail.
 
  If the card could take raw data, I could use it to MPEG2 encode my DV
  files that I grab from my video camera.  That would be cool!
 
 Indeed!  I wonder if Hauppauge recognize the value of this possible
 feature.  Generic hardware MPEG2 encoder.  That would be uber-groovy!
 
 b.
 
 ___
 mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org
 http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:05 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
 methodology.  The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
 the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have.  Record the signal
 exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
 Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.

 So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
 perfectly, field by field.  That is the only way to do it.

 This is what DirectFB and the G400's TV-Out accomplishes.
 Unfortunately, Myth's use of QT makes this impossible because QT does
 not support DirectFB, or even SDL.  SDL would be satisfactory because
 SDL supports drawing on a DirectFB surface.

Guess I'll have to remove all those SDL visualization methods in mythmusic, 
and the DirectFB videoOutput class in mythtv, since they're obviously 
impossible.

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Scott Alfter

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Thom Paine wrote:
 I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
 upcoming myth box.
 
 I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
 television.
 
 An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
 the FX-5200.

For SDTV-only playback of MythTV recordings (no non-MPEG-2 video, no DVD,
etc.), the PVR-350's video output is far superior to the TV-out on a video
card.  I always ran into problems with the FX5200 not aligning the fields
properly, so interlaced video (which is nearly all SD video) looked nasty.

For any kind of HDTV display, of course, the PVR-350 output won't do you any
good.  Since the framebuffer on the PVR-350 is also fairly slow, playback of
DVDs, MPEG-4 video, etc. works better on a normal video card as well.

(Yes, I know that the video on DVDs is MPEG-2, but I don't know of any DVD
player software that will take advantage of the PVR-350's MPEG decoder.  It
should be possible...way back in the day, I used a Dxr2 hardware MPEG
decoder to play DVDs on a 200-MHz K6.)

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/Top-posting!
 \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/ladenWhat's the most annoying thing on Usenet?



pgpHuUTfYEAi8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
methodology.  The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have.  Record the signal
exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.
So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
perfectly, field by field.  That is the only way to do it.
	Isn't that what VSYNC is supposed to be for?  What's the status on 
this, anyway?  I haven't tried since I put an NVIDIA card (MX-440) in my 
machine.  I'm running the VGA port at 480i speed, so syncing to the 
playing MPEG2 stream would be *perfect*.  Right now I need to do 
deinterlacing or I get tearing.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:19 -0500, Isaac Richards wrote:
 On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:05 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
  See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
  methodology.  The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
  the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have.  Record the signal
  exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
  Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.
 
  So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
  perfectly, field by field.  That is the only way to do it.
 
  This is what DirectFB and the G400's TV-Out accomplishes.
  Unfortunately, Myth's use of QT makes this impossible because QT does
  not support DirectFB, or even SDL.  SDL would be satisfactory because
  SDL supports drawing on a DirectFB surface.
 
 Guess I'll have to remove all those SDL visualization methods in mythmusic, 
 and the DirectFB videoOutput class in mythtv, since they're obviously 
 impossible.

Go back and reread what I said.  I did not say Myth's use of DirectFB
was impossible (indeed it is great) nor did I say Myth's use of SDL was
impossible.  What I said is that QT did not support writing on either an
SDL surface nor a DirectFB surface, which is the disappointing part
because that makes getting the OSD on DirectFB impossible.

I'm really not sure how displaying the OSD on an X-server on a G400
matroxset mangled framebuffer is supposed to work with the DirectFB
layer 2 CRTC2 output anyhow since I thought the two were mutually
exclusive (i.e. framebuffer/X11 needing the maven kernel module and
DirectFB requiring no maven kernel module).

I did try it and all I got was the video playing in a small square in
the top right of the screen.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:35 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   Isn't that what VSYNC is supposed to be for?

Exactly.  The G400 (probably others) is able to interrupt on the vsync
pulse allowing the driver and software above it to know when the vsync
has happened and thus when to load the next frame into video memory
(frame flip).

But AFAIK, X11 does not support vsyncing.  There is no way for an X11
application to know when the vsync pulse has hit so it can't really know
when to frame flip.

Also the video hardware has to be able to encode to TV-Out in an
interlaced overscanned mode.  I have only seen the G400 able to do this
properly with DirectFB's help.  matroxset and X11 and the framebuffer
don't do it properly.

 Right now I need to do 
 deinterlacing or I get tearing.

Yup.  Exactly.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Gabe Rubin

I understand the general consensus is pvr output  video card with
s-vid out, but what about a regular video card with a VGA-Composite
converter.  Would that rival the pvr output with the added bonus of
playing any format thrown at it?
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:44 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:35 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Isn't that what VSYNC is supposed to be for?

 Exactly.  The G400 (probably others) is able to interrupt on the vsync
 pulse allowing the driver and software above it to know when the vsync
 has happened and thus when to load the next frame into video memory
 (frame flip).

 But AFAIK, X11 does not support vsyncing.  There is no way for an X11
 application to know when the vsync pulse has hit so it can't really know
 when to frame flip.

 Also the video hardware has to be able to encode to TV-Out in an
 interlaced overscanned mode.  I have only seen the G400 able to do this
 properly with DirectFB's help.  matroxset and X11 and the framebuffer
 don't do it properly.

Guess I'll have to remove the vsync code from the Xv/XvMC output at well.

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Martin Ebourne

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:40 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 I'm really not sure how displaying the OSD on an X-server on a G400
 matroxset mangled framebuffer is supposed to work with the DirectFB
 layer 2 CRTC2 output anyhow since I thought the two were mutually
 exclusive (i.e. framebuffer/X11 needing the maven kernel module and
 DirectFB requiring no maven kernel module).

I think that one's a losing battle. DFB runs CRTC2 in YUV mode on G400
to reduce the amount of data transferred over the pci bus, and reduce
the amount of computation. That doesn't do the OSD any favours.

Cheers,

Martin.


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:40 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 Go back and reread what I said.  I did not say Myth's use of DirectFB
 was impossible (indeed it is great) nor did I say Myth's use of SDL was
 impossible.  What I said is that QT did not support writing on either an
 SDL surface nor a DirectFB surface, which is the disappointing part
 because that makes getting the OSD on DirectFB impossible.

Huh?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or are you just making 
things up as you go?  Qt has absolutely nothing to do with the OSD in mythtv.

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Martin Ebourne

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:44 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 But AFAIK, X11 does not support vsyncing.  There is no way for an X11
 application to know when the vsync pulse has hit so it can't really know
 when to frame flip.

It's possible with opengl etc, but I don't know the details, and it
isn't supported on matrox.

You can also hack mythtv to check the horizontal scan line count
register (0x3c48) directly from the video output code, and get it to
busy-wait until the start of frame. This can be made to work ok, but is
never going to make it into the myth code for good reason.

 Also the video hardware has to be able to encode to TV-Out in an
 interlaced overscanned mode.  I have only seen the G400 able to do this
 properly with DirectFB's help.  matroxset and X11 and the framebuffer
 don't do it properly.

No, this works under X too if you set it up right. You need to disable
interlacing in mythtv, of course. Also use 16 bit RGB due to PCI bus
bandwidth in 32 bit RGB.

Cheers,

Martin.

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Dan Littlejohn

Could someone provide a run down of where are the settings are made. 
As I understand it, there are settings in the xorg.conf file (I have
only gotten the fx5200 to do 800x600, 640x480, 320x240) and in the
setup menu in Myth (setup-? for bob and 720x480).  Are those the only
two places to worry about?

Dan



On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:52:19 +0100, Jeroen Brosens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Now use your video card's TV-out, enable Xv (which is generally hardware
 accelerated) and set the resolution to 720x576 if you are in PAL land or
 720x480 for NTSC and use the bob deinterlacer. Now you have the same fluid
 and smooth motion as TV with a sharp image. The trick is, that the bob
 deinterlacer spits out frames at the same rate that TV's do with fields
 (interlaced, half frames) while other deinterlacers do not.
  
  I understand that the 350 is terribly slow on other material thatn MPEG-2
 since it uses a frambuffer. So much for XviD/etc watching.
  
  -- Jeroen
  
  Ronald Kohsman wrote: 
  I concur with John. Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from
 normal tele. -r -Original Message- From:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of John Kuhn Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM To: Discussion
 about mythtv Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut I honestly
 have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i have tried the
 GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry and the colors are
 washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it should and it can keep up
 very well with tickers and fast motion vid.. --John 
  I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
 upcoming myth box. I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to
 hook to my television. An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the
 pvr-350 or should I use 
  the FX-5200. Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I
 plan to have a backend / front end system in the future. Thanks. -=/Thom
 --- - 
  ___ mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org
 http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 ___ mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org
 http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 
  ___ mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org
 http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users 
  
 ___
 mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org
 http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 
 

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 15:00 -0500, Isaac Richards wrote:
 Huh?  Do you have any idea what you're talking about,

A little.  I have been mucking with PVR software and TV-Out stuff for
about 4 years now.  I have been a long time user of Freevo on DirectFB
so I know what properly formatted TV-Out looks like.  It looks just like
TV, not like X11 @ 800x600 on the TV.

 or are you just making 
 things up as you go?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here Isaac.  You seem to have gotten
offended somehow.  Notice I said I was a long time user of Freevo.  Now
I am a user of MythTV.  It is (IMHO) much better than Freevo, with the
exception of G400 TV-Out support.  I am trying to help with that effort,
not hurt it.

   Qt has absolutely nothing to do with the OSD in mythtv.

So, the whole GUI that you get when mythtv starts up is not written on
the QT toolkit?

What exactly is QT used for in mythtv then?

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 03:06 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
 So, the whole GUI that you get when mythtv starts up is not written on
 the QT toolkit?

 What exactly is QT used for in mythtv then?

Only the non-video portions of the UI are drawn by Qt.  Since that's by 
definition not video playback, and isn't being displayed at video frame 
rates, it has absolutely no need to know anything about the vsync or anything 
else, really, aside from what resolution + dpi to display at.

Please, get a clue before spouting off extremely inaccurate comments.

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

But AFAIK, X11 does not support vsyncing.  There is no way for an X11
application to know when the vsync pulse has hit so it can't really know
when to frame flip.
Also the video hardware has to be able to encode to TV-Out in an
interlaced overscanned mode.  I have only seen the G400 able to do this
properly with DirectFB's help.  matroxset and X11 and the framebuffer
don't do it properly.
	I don't know what you're trying to say about an interlaced 
overscanned mode.  I don't know about TVout cards, but there are lots of 
cards that can output 480i on the VGA port.  It's almost exactly 1/2 VGA 
(640x480) speed, so the quality is excellent... it just needs to be 
tv-encoded.  That doesn't affect the VSYNC issue.

Right now I need to do
deinterlacing or I get tearing.
Yup.  Exactly.
	It's weird though... one would think that with a lack of vsync, 
there'd be a tearing vertical roll.  There isn't in my setup... the 
tearpoint is always at the same location.  Quite odd.

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

You can also hack mythtv to check the horizontal scan line count
register (0x3c48) directly from the video output code, and get it to
busy-wait until the start of frame. This can be made to work ok, but is
never going to make it into the myth code for good reason.
	It sounds interesting... a sort of software hack to phoney up 
VSYNC.  IIRC VSYNC support is enabled in MythTV now, but I'm not sure 
which cards it supports or how to enable it.  NVidia only?

No, this works under X too if you set it up right. You need to disable
interlacing in mythtv, of course. Also use 16 bit RGB due to PCI bus
bandwidth in 32 bit RGB.
Disable [de]interlacing you mean?
-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 03:50 pm, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
   It's weird though... one would think that with a lack of vsync,
 there'd be a tearing vertical roll.  There isn't in my setup... the
 tearpoint is always at the same location.  Quite odd.

Are you running the video output on a 2nd head?  XvPutImage should be syncing 
it automatically (so no tearing), but this doesn't work in a multi-headed 
situation.  If using an nvidia card, there's also a setting in the 
nvidia-settings app to enable/disable this, but it's enabled by default.

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Gabe Rubin wrote:
I understand the general consensus is pvr output  video card with
s-vid out, but what about a regular video card with a VGA-Composite
converter.  Would that rival the pvr output with the added bonus of
playing any format thrown at it?
	Yes, provided the converter doesn't suck.  I'm pretty sure that 
most of the low end ones are as bad (or worse) than the built-in vid card 
ones.  Remember, those scanline converters go:
[D-A from VGA]-A-D-scale-temporally interpolate-A

Lots of places for it to suck.
-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 03:53 pm, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
  You can also hack mythtv to check the horizontal scan line count
  register (0x3c48) directly from the video output code, and get it to
  busy-wait until the start of frame. This can be made to work ok, but is
  never going to make it into the myth code for good reason.

   It sounds interesting... a sort of software hack to phoney up
 VSYNC.  IIRC VSYNC support is enabled in MythTV now, but I'm not sure
 which cards it supports or how to enable it.  NVidia only?

Older nvidia drivers (native implementation), any driver + xserver that 
supports the GLX_SGI_video_sync OpenGL extension (newer nvidia drivers  some 
ati I believe), and a DRM method (unichrome driver, maybe a couple others, 
some of the opensource ati drivers).

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Jå§òÑ M@¢þhè®$Øñ

I orignally got a pvr-350.  Now I realize I should have saved myself a
few bucks and gone with the pvr-250.

People use thier myth boxes in different ways.  But I always felt the
great thing about myth is you can do much more than watch TV.  Myth
does games, play video files, DVD, video conferencing.  Any
off-the-self DVR can do that.  I'd go with an pvr-250 and an Nvidia
card if I where you.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Thom Paine

On Tue, 2005-15-02 at 16:00 -0500, J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I orignally got a pvr-350.  Now I realize I should have saved myself a
 few bucks and gone with the pvr-250.
 
 People use thier myth boxes in different ways.  But I always felt the
 great thing about myth is you can do much more than watch TV.  Myth
 does games, play video files, DVD, video conferencing.  Any
 off-the-self DVR can do that.  I'd go with an pvr-250 and an Nvidia
 card if I where you.

Someone told me, or I read somewhere, that with the 350 has dual tuners.

But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for me to get either
card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is $230 for me from my
computer hardware supplier.

I thought the 350 would be better, or at least the extra few bucks.

Thanks.

-=/Thom


___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Jå§òÑ M@¢þhè®$Øñ

 Any off-the-self DVR can do that.  

I didn't mean to say that all DVRs can play games and videos.
I meant to say any DVR can watch record and play TV.  Myth can do so
much more, so why go with a pvr-350 tv-out?

I really should prove read before I post ;)


-Jå§òÑ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Tim Fenn

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:56:14PM -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
 On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Gabe Rubin wrote:
 
 I understand the general consensus is pvr output  video card with
 s-vid out, but what about a regular video card with a VGA-Composite
 converter.  Would that rival the pvr output with the added bonus of
 playing any format thrown at it?
 
   Yes, provided the converter doesn't suck.  I'm pretty sure that 
 most of the low end ones are as bad (or worse) than the built-in vid card 
 ones.  Remember, those scanline converters go:
 [D-A from VGA]-A-D-scale-temporally interpolate-A
 

As an addendum, many newer TVs (particularly HD) tend to support DVI
input - has anyone used this successfully, and more importantly, with
good results?

Sorry if this is a naive question, I'm still learning much of this.

Regards,
Tim

-- 
Morals?  I eat communism and $h!t America, brother.  --Seanbaby
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Paul K

Just my opinion, but...

  No matter what else you can do with your PVR, if TV doesn't look like
TV, it's no good to me.  Again - Just my opinion. And yes, we don't all
use them for the same things...

Paul K



___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Joe Votour

The PVR-350 has dual tuners, but one of them is for
TV, and the other is for radio (I don't know if it's
FM only, or AM also).

-- Joe

--- Thom Paine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, 2005-15-02 at 16:00 -0500, Jå§òÑ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
  I orignally got a pvr-350.  Now I realize I should
 have saved myself a
  few bucks and gone with the pvr-250.
  
  People use thier myth boxes in different ways. 
 But I always felt the
  great thing about myth is you can do much more
 than watch TV.  Myth
  does games, play video files, DVD, video
 conferencing.  Any
  off-the-self DVR can do that.  I'd go with an
 pvr-250 and an Nvidia
  card if I where you.
 
 Someone told me, or I read somewhere, that with the
 350 has dual tuners.
 
 But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for
 me to get either
 card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is $230
 for me from my
 computer hardware supplier.
 
 I thought the 350 would be better, or at least the
 extra few bucks.
 
 Thanks.
 
 -=/Thom
 
 
  ___
 mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org

http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 





__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Isaac Richards wrote:
On Tuesday 15 February 2005 03:50 pm, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
  It's weird though... one would think that with a lack of vsync,
there'd be a tearing vertical roll.  There isn't in my setup... the
tearpoint is always at the same location.  Quite odd.
Are you running the video output on a 2nd head?  XvPutImage should be 
syncing
it automatically (so no tearing), but this doesn't work in a multi-headed
situation.  If using an nvidia card, there's also a setting in the
nvidia-settings app to enable/disable this, but it's enabled by default.
	No... it's always been on a singlehead.  Now that I think about 
it, however, I'm not sure if I've tried it since I switched to an Nvidia 
card with proprietary driver.  I used to use a r128 Gatos.  I'll check for 
sure tonight and make sure it's still broken.  It should Just Work if 
the SGI_vsync whatever extension is there, though, eh?

-Cory
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student   *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   *
*
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Donavan Stanley

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:21:21 -0500, Paul K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Just my opinion, but...
 
   No matter what else you can do with your PVR, if TV doesn't look like
 TV, it's no good to me.  Again - Just my opinion. And yes, we don't all
 use them for the same things...

My Chaintech nForce2 based Geforce 4 produces output that looks like TV.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Gabe Rubin

 Someone told me, or I read somewhere, that with the 350 has dual tuners.
 
Somone told you wrong.  I believe there is a new card that has dual
tuners, but the 350 is not such a beast.

I personally use the pvr-350, and it does have pretty good output (on
a crappy tv, so hard to get a good read on that).  I do regret not
having the ability to play divx or other formats, but I can play vcd
and svcd from my windows box through the pvr with no problem.  I
specified the internal player instead of mplayer or xine to do this,
and aside from not being able to skip around that well, it works fine
output wise.

When I do upgrade the box, or add another, I will likely get one with
a different vid card (or better yet, just get a tv with vga or dvi
inputs).

-- 
Email me if you want a gmail account, I have invites.
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 04:26 pm, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
 On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Isaac Richards wrote:
  On Tuesday 15 February 2005 03:50 pm, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
It's weird though... one would think that with a lack of vsync,
  there'd be a tearing vertical roll.  There isn't in my setup... the
  tearpoint is always at the same location.  Quite odd.
 
  Are you running the video output on a 2nd head?  XvPutImage should be
  syncing it automatically (so no tearing), but this doesn't work in a
  multi-headed situation.  If using an nvidia card, there's also a setting
  in the nvidia-settings app to enable/disable this, but it's enabled by
  default.

   No... it's always been on a singlehead.  Now that I think about
 it, however, I'm not sure if I've tried it since I switched to an Nvidia
 card with proprietary driver.  I used to use a r128 Gatos.  I'll check for
 sure tonight and make sure it's still broken.  It should Just Work if
 the SGI_vsync whatever extension is there, though, eh?

Well, with Xv and a nvidia card and singlehead, there shouldn't be any tearing 
whatsoever on video playback, unless you disable that through the 
nvidia-settings app.  That's built in to the driver.  

Tearing, though is separate from the vsync support code in myth, which uses 
the vsync info it gets for more accurate delivery timing.  You do have to 
enable the opengl sync method in settings.pro for that vsync method to work, 
though.

Isaac
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Brad Templeton

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:07:45PM -0500, Thom Paine wrote:
 Someone told me, or I read somewhere, that with the 350 has dual tuners.
 
 But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for me to get either
 card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is $230 for me from my
 computer hardware supplier.
 
 I thought the 350 would be better, or at least the extra few bucks.

It is a shame how much Canadian stores rip you off, not enough competition.
(Even for ATI products which are from a Canadian company.)

The WinTV-PVR-150-MCE for example, if you don't want a remote control,
is $65 USD at buy.com and $83 with the remote control.  However the
drivers for this are less mature, and probably more work for you.
Soon, however, this will be the card of choice, I suspect -- though that
USB device that also does MP4 that was being talked about here may also
be popular.

Nvidia GF4 cards with (I think) quite decent TV-out are $35.

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Minh Duong


Does the FX5200 cards have mpeg2 hardware decoders? 
nVidia's site isn't clear on this.  I think that some
of them might, but I think it's only on the mobile
versions.  Anybody got any info on this?

--- Brad Templeton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:07:45PM -0500, Thom Paine
 wrote:
  Someone told me, or I read somewhere, that with
 the 350 has dual tuners.
  
  But also, the price difference is $30 Canadian for
 me to get either
  card. The 250 is $199 at BestBuy and the 350 is
 $230 for me from my
  computer hardware supplier.
  
  I thought the 350 would be better, or at least the
 extra few bucks.
 
 It is a shame how much Canadian stores rip you off,
 not enough competition.
 (Even for ATI products which are from a Canadian
 company.)
 
 The WinTV-PVR-150-MCE for example, if you don't want
 a remote control,
 is $65 USD at buy.com and $83 with the remote
 control.  However the
 drivers for this are less mature, and probably more
 work for you.
 Soon, however, this will be the card of choice, I
 suspect -- though that
 USB device that also does MP4 that was being talked
 about here may also
 be popular.
 
 Nvidia GF4 cards with (I think) quite decent TV-out
 are $35.
 
  ___
 mythtv-users mailing list
 mythtv-users@mythtv.org

http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
 




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 
 

___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

2005-02-15 Thread Jeroen Brosens


Well, with Xv and a nvidia card and singlehead, there shouldn't be any tearing 
whatsoever on video playback, unless you disable that through the 
nvidia-settings app.  That's built in to the driver.  

Tearing, though is separate from the vsync support code in myth, which uses 
the vsync info it gets for more accurate delivery timing.  You do have to 
enable the opengl sync method in settings.pro for that vsync method to work, 
though.

Isaac
__
 

Is there or will there be a way for MythTV to have vsync support without 
OpenGL, DRM, etc.? Like myself there must be a great number of people 
that built their HTPC around a barebone which looks good in the living 
room. Most of the times, these don't have high-end ATi or nVidia video 
chips OR a video upgrade option. Also, TV-outs are not always capable of 
processinginterlaced material, which leaves the need for either a 
hardware workaround (VGA to RGB converter) or good software 
deinterlacing WITH vsync support.

I am still trying to get a satisfactory, full frame rate and most 
important of all steady (!) image because the only available 
deinterlacer, bobdeint, goes jittering *a lot* without proper vsync. 
Sigh. As soon as my vga2rgb cable is working (read: lots of modeline 
tuning) I will finally be able to watch smooth TV on my Pundit!

-- Jeroen
___
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut