On 7/4/05, Donavan Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something that would change the dynamic a little, would be to allow
per-source-resolution filter choices. 720x480 you want deint and
denoise. 1280x720 needs neither one. 1920x1080 needs deint, etc.
What you really want is denoise on the
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 22:36 -0600, Chad wrote:
So, I am wondering what these quarks are, and if they are fixed in
certain releases of nvidia drivers, and most importantly, does XvMC
really take that much load off the processor?
Personally, I think it's a lot of version control, hardware
On 7/3/05, Chad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, just reading over a plethora of threads that contradict each
So, I am wondering what these quarks are, and if they are fixed in
certain releases of nvidia drivers, and most importantly, does XvMC
really take that much load off the processor?
On 7/4/05, Blammo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More to the top end of the scale, should you want to watch HD content
without XvMC it does take a very beefy machine, especially if you want
any form of deinterlacing. I've tried it with a XP2400 clocked at
2400mhz, and with kerndeint and any
Hello, just reading over a plethora of threads that contradict each
other. It seems that some people can play back HD content via XvMC
and get away with having a 1Ghz processor. Others claim that with a
much higher CPU, nearing 2Ghz, even with XvMC enabled they are max'd
out on their CPU and
