Rubbish. It is possible to implement a 480i --> 1080p de-interlacer & up-scaler in software.
1920x1080i with software deinterlacing will show 540p as 1920x540p(540p then scaled to 1080p) where 1080i with proper hardware deinterlacer would give full 1920x1080p.
Atleast... this is my understanding of how interlaced material gets handled by software vs. the hardware.
1920x1080i with software deinterlacing will show 540p as 1920x540p(540p then scaled to 1080p) where 1080i with proper hardware deinterlacer would give full 1920x1080p.
Atleast... this is my understanding of how interlaced material gets handled by software vs. the hardware.
But that's my point. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone implementing a fully featured, high quality, de-interlacer and scaler in software. There may be a problem, however, in getting that to run in real-time on current CPUs.
Well, what I was saying, is that Apple could have a sucessful tablet, but even being sucessful wouldn't change their marketshare much.
If Apple sells 6 million computers this year, and they had a tablet in January, and sold a million of them this year to add another million to Apple's numbers, that would bring the total to 7 million.
That would certainly be nice, and I won't decry it goodness to Apple's bottom line.
But it won't make much difference in their marketshare. That's what I'm saying. The market won't suddenly jump to OS X because Apple has even a killer tablet. A million sold, for Apple , is a LOT of machines. But the marketplace is 200 million machines a year. A million is a drop in the bucket.
I'm NOT saying that Apple shouldn't come out with some machine that has the characterists of a tablet though.
But, it's the mid range machines that will make the difference.
But that's my point. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone implementing a fully featured, high quality, de-interlacer and scaler in software. There may be a problem, however, in getting that to run in real-time on current CPUs.
I hear your point. I actually think coreduo can handle real-time scaling and deinterlacing via software dvd player as long as enough ram is installed. However, my concern isn't just being able to do that, but being able to do it correctly. If you've experienced half-ass job bobbing deinterlacer in action, you'll never want to watch any interlaced video material again. I just wouldn't want to spend money on something that will give me full HD contents with tons of deinterlacing/scaling video artifacts and produce worst picture quality than properly deinterlaced 480i DVD titles.
The PDF linked to by bitemymac on page 8 of this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by bitemymac
I hear your point.
Well, you say that, but then contradict yourself with the rest of your post. It is possible to implement a high quality, motion-compensated, all the bells and whistles de-interlacer and scaler in software.
Anyway, the whole point is moot because Apple would never do it.
Most consumer market PC's with IGP usualy comes with PCIe or AGP upgrade uptions which most people spend $60 on a lower end GPU card that performs 10x better than the intel IGP GMA950.
Of the people I know who have Dell's. No one knows what a graphics card is and none of them have updated whatever they got.
Quote:
The Apple DVD player never deinterlaced all that well. I've never tried to run VLC.
The deinterlace is fine for most viewing. Its just that other applications are smoother.
Quote:
And you, and others here, seem to think that the majority of PC buyers get $399 and $499 computers. They don't.
Most people I know who have Dells were hooked by the advertisements of $399. But after you actually add everything that you actually need to have a modern computer the true price is near to $1000.
The PDF linked to by bitemymac on page 8 of this thread.
You do realize that that is discussing a $49 plugin for a $150+ card since the deinterlacing is only on the 6600 or greater.
And that the report was commissioned by nVidia
And that the description of how they couldn't actually set the PC and Samsung screen they had up to do 1080 on the Intel 950 because they 'couldn't find a driver' negates much of the test.
However, I'm sure that $200 worth of nVidia does beat $7 of Intel chip.
You do realize that that is discussing a $49 plugin for a $150+ card since the deinterlacing is only on the 6600 or greater.
So? That doesn't change how the 950 performed.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And that the report was commissioned by nVidia
Yes, the report was commissioned by nVidia, but so what? It wasn't performed by nVidia, and if its results hadn't come out as they would have liked, they just wouldn't have publicised it.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
However, I'm sure that $200 worth of nVidia does beat $7 of Intel chip.
It was also soundly beaten by a cheap DVD player.
The vast majority of that nVidia price goes on all the 3D acceleration pipelines and VRAM. There is no reason that decent de-interlacing and upscaling should cost a lot of money to implement. It requires a tiny fraction of the total number of transistors in a typical GPU.
If someone's going to use a computer as a HTPC (I assume this stands for Home Theatre PC?), they want it to have decent video playback quality.
Really? What makes you so sure of that? They've had plenty of years to do it, but still haven't.
Because if they really want to position Mac in the media center role folks will start complaining that thier Desperate Housewives DVDs looks jaggy in Front Row (no I dont know if DH is a poorly flagged DVD...its just an example).
Or someone else will create a higher end DVD player for the mac a la theater tek.
The PDF linked to by bitemymac on page 8 of this thread.
Yes, the study done by a couple folks clueless about video that doesn't apply to Macs ANYWAY because Apple chooses not to expose the GPU/VPU capabilities thus far.
Which means for all intents and purposes the GMA950 = X300 = X1600 = GeForce 7300 for video playback.
If you like the performance of any mac wrt to video the Mini shouldn't be any worse and should be better than any G4.
Because if they really want to position Mac in the media center role folks will start complaining that thier Desperate Housewives DVDs looks jaggy in Front Row (no I dont know if DH is a poorly flagged DVD...its just an example).
[sarcasm]What, you mean just like how people complain about 128 kbps song downloads and 320 x 240 "main profile" video downloads from the iTMS?[/sarcasm]
I know, some people complain about those things, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. 1 billion song downloads, 15 million video downloads so far.
Yes, the study done by a couple folks clueless about video that doesn't apply to Macs ANYWAY because Apple chooses not to expose the GPU/VPU capabilities thus far.
Which means for all intensive purposes the GMA950 = X300 = X1600 = GeForce 7300 for video playback.
So you know Apple's DVD decoding pipeline? I know they use the GPU's MPEG-2 decoding; are you suggesting that they then bring the data back to the CPU for de-interlacing and scaling, and then send it back to the GPU for output?
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
If you like the performance of any mac wrt to video the Mini shouldn't be any worse and should be better than any G4.
Only the best of breed HTPCs beat current $200 upconverting DVD players like the Oppo IMHO. Yes, in the best of breed they will likely run PureVideo over ATI Catalyst these days as near as I can tell.
The downside to PC based HTPCs is they aren't as intuitive to use as a $200 Oppo and still require a lot of tweaking (ffdshow, zoomplayer, tt, glider, etc) to get working.
Which is why I dropped out of the HTPC game. The Mac should "just work" a lot better. In some ways it does. In others, not so much.
But the potential for an elegant and easy to use interface is much higher on OSX than from the folks that gave us MCE.
I'm not too thrilled about the GMA950 but its not a deal killer for video as much as OSX is sub-par in that regard. It would be a deal killer for game players.
But given the relative lack of titles on the Mac I think you'd be better off buying a $150 PS2 or XBox rig than a $150 vid card upgrade.
So you know Apple's DVD decoding pipeline? I know they use the GPU's MPEG-2 decoding; are you suggesting that they then bring the data back to the CPU for de-interlacing and scaling, and then send it back to the GPU for output?
From the reports the MBP fails HQV test disc in a similar way to study above (ie jaggies everywhere).
I stand corrected on the GPU decoding through the DVD player. It looks as if they are exposing the H.264 hw decoding at least for the X1600 by some reports. Yes, and they did have MPEG-2 decode through the DVD player.
It shouldn't be hard to determine if someone has a HQV test disc and an apple store nearby.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
Rubbish. It is possible to implement a 480i --> 1080p de-interlacer & up-scaler in software.
1920x1080i with software deinterlacing will show 540p as 1920x540p(540p then scaled to 1080p) where 1080i with proper hardware deinterlacer would give full 1920x1080p.
Atleast... this is my understanding of how interlaced material gets handled by software vs. the hardware.
Originally posted by bitemymac
1920x1080i with software deinterlacing will show 540p as 1920x540p(540p then scaled to 1080p) where 1080i with proper hardware deinterlacer would give full 1920x1080p.
Atleast... this is my understanding of how interlaced material gets handled by software vs. the hardware.
But that's my point. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone implementing a fully featured, high quality, de-interlacer and scaler in software. There may be a problem, however, in getting that to run in real-time on current CPUs.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, what I was saying, is that Apple could have a sucessful tablet, but even being sucessful wouldn't change their marketshare much.
If Apple sells 6 million computers this year, and they had a tablet in January, and sold a million of them this year to add another million to Apple's numbers, that would bring the total to 7 million.
That would certainly be nice, and I won't decry it goodness to Apple's bottom line.
But it won't make much difference in their marketshare. That's what I'm saying. The market won't suddenly jump to OS X because Apple has even a killer tablet. A million sold, for Apple , is a LOT of machines. But the marketplace is 200 million machines a year. A million is a drop in the bucket.
I'm NOT saying that Apple shouldn't come out with some machine that has the characterists of a tablet though.
But, it's the mid range machines that will make the difference.
Can't argue with you there.
Originally posted by Mr. H
But that's my point. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone implementing a fully featured, high quality, de-interlacer and scaler in software. There may be a problem, however, in getting that to run in real-time on current CPUs.
I hear your point. I actually think coreduo can handle real-time scaling and deinterlacing via software dvd player as long as enough ram is installed. However, my concern isn't just being able to do that, but being able to do it correctly. If you've experienced half-ass job bobbing deinterlacer in action, you'll never want to watch any interlaced video material again. I just wouldn't want to spend money on something that will give me full HD contents with tons of deinterlacing/scaling video artifacts and produce worst picture quality than properly deinterlaced 480i DVD titles.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Because the 950's de-interlacer and scaler are both crap.
Says who?
I'm not disagreeing but I've not read anything of it's abilities past the spec sheet.
[Not that I'm going to watch HD output for the next few years anyway so it's kind of academic personally]
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Says who?
The PDF linked to by bitemymac on page 8 of this thread.
Originally posted by bitemymac
I hear your point.
Well, you say that, but then contradict yourself with the rest of your post. It is possible to implement a high quality, motion-compensated, all the bells and whistles de-interlacer and scaler in software.
Anyway, the whole point is moot because Apple would never do it.
Most consumer market PC's with IGP usualy comes with PCIe or AGP upgrade uptions which most people spend $60 on a lower end GPU card that performs 10x better than the intel IGP GMA950.
Of the people I know who have Dell's. No one knows what a graphics card is and none of them have updated whatever they got.
The Apple DVD player never deinterlaced all that well. I've never tried to run VLC.
The deinterlace is fine for most viewing. Its just that other applications are smoother.
And you, and others here, seem to think that the majority of PC buyers get $399 and $499 computers. They don't.
Most people I know who have Dells were hooked by the advertisements of $399. But after you actually add everything that you actually need to have a modern computer the true price is near to $1000.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=937
Originally posted by TenoBell
The AOpen MiniPC for $1000.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=937
Plus monitor. I don't know if the keyboard and mouse is included. Or software.
It also isn't clear if the $1,000 includes an OS, and if it does, whether it is a free one?Linux, of some flavor.
Originally posted by Mr. H
The PDF linked to by bitemymac on page 8 of this thread.
You do realize that that is discussing a $49 plugin for a $150+ card since the deinterlacing is only on the 6600 or greater.
And that the report was commissioned by nVidia
And that the description of how they couldn't actually set the PC and Samsung screen they had up to do 1080 on the Intel 950 because they 'couldn't find a driver' negates much of the test.
However, I'm sure that $200 worth of nVidia does beat $7 of Intel chip.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It clearly says that it comes with a remote certified for MCE (Media Center Edition).
It does, but other articles said that it didn't come with an OS at that price. At least not here in the US.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
You do realize that that is discussing a $49 plugin for a $150+ card since the deinterlacing is only on the 6600 or greater.
So? That doesn't change how the 950 performed.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And that the report was commissioned by nVidia
Yes, the report was commissioned by nVidia, but so what? It wasn't performed by nVidia, and if its results hadn't come out as they would have liked, they just wouldn't have publicised it.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
However, I'm sure that $200 worth of nVidia does beat $7 of Intel chip.
It was also soundly beaten by a cheap DVD player.
The vast majority of that nVidia price goes on all the 3D acceleration pipelines and VRAM. There is no reason that decent de-interlacing and upscaling should cost a lot of money to implement. It requires a tiny fraction of the total number of transistors in a typical GPU.
If someone's going to use a computer as a HTPC (I assume this stands for Home Theatre PC?), they want it to have decent video playback quality.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Really? What makes you so sure of that? They've had plenty of years to do it, but still haven't.
Because if they really want to position Mac in the media center role folks will start complaining that thier Desperate Housewives DVDs looks jaggy in Front Row (no I dont know if DH is a poorly flagged DVD...its just an example).
Or someone else will create a higher end DVD player for the mac a la theater tek.
/shrug
Vinea
Originally posted by Mr. H
The PDF linked to by bitemymac on page 8 of this thread.
Yes, the study done by a couple folks clueless about video that doesn't apply to Macs ANYWAY because Apple chooses not to expose the GPU/VPU capabilities thus far.
Which means for all intents and purposes the GMA950 = X300 = X1600 = GeForce 7300 for video playback.
If you like the performance of any mac wrt to video the Mini shouldn't be any worse and should be better than any G4.
It's just that gaming will suck ass on the mini.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Because if they really want to position Mac in the media center role folks will start complaining that thier Desperate Housewives DVDs looks jaggy in Front Row (no I dont know if DH is a poorly flagged DVD...its just an example).
[sarcasm]What, you mean just like how people complain about 128 kbps song downloads and 320 x 240 "main profile" video downloads from the iTMS?[/sarcasm]
I know, some people complain about those things, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. 1 billion song downloads, 15 million video downloads so far.
Originally posted by vinea
Yes, the study done by a couple folks clueless about video that doesn't apply to Macs ANYWAY because Apple chooses not to expose the GPU/VPU capabilities thus far.
Which means for all intensive purposes the GMA950 = X300 = X1600 = GeForce 7300 for video playback.
So you know Apple's DVD decoding pipeline? I know they use the GPU's MPEG-2 decoding; are you suggesting that they then bring the data back to the CPU for de-interlacing and scaling, and then send it back to the GPU for output?
Originally posted by vinea
If you like the performance of any mac wrt to video the Mini shouldn't be any worse and should be better than any G4.
I don't. Apple's DVD player sucks quality-wise.
Originally posted by Mr. H
It was also soundly beaten by a cheap DVD player.
Only the best of breed HTPCs beat current $200 upconverting DVD players like the Oppo IMHO. Yes, in the best of breed they will likely run PureVideo over ATI Catalyst these days as near as I can tell.
The downside to PC based HTPCs is they aren't as intuitive to use as a $200 Oppo and still require a lot of tweaking (ffdshow, zoomplayer, tt, glider, etc) to get working.
Which is why I dropped out of the HTPC game. The Mac should "just work" a lot better. In some ways it does. In others, not so much.
But the potential for an elegant and easy to use interface is much higher on OSX than from the folks that gave us MCE.
I'm not too thrilled about the GMA950 but its not a deal killer for video as much as OSX is sub-par in that regard. It would be a deal killer for game players.
But given the relative lack of titles on the Mac I think you'd be better off buying a $150 PS2 or XBox rig than a $150 vid card upgrade.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
Which means for all intensive purposes
Don't take this the wrong way, but for future reference, it's
"Intents and purposes"
Originally posted by Mr. H
So you know Apple's DVD decoding pipeline? I know they use the GPU's MPEG-2 decoding; are you suggesting that they then bring the data back to the CPU for de-interlacing and scaling, and then send it back to the GPU for output?
From the reports the MBP fails HQV test disc in a similar way to study above (ie jaggies everywhere).
I stand corrected on the GPU decoding through the DVD player. It looks as if they are exposing the H.264 hw decoding at least for the X1600 by some reports. Yes, and they did have MPEG-2 decode through the DVD player.
It shouldn't be hard to determine if someone has a HQV test disc and an apple store nearby.
Vinea