[mythtv-users] Temporal 2x vs Temporal-Spatial 2x

[John Pilkington]

On 09/02/12 15:47, Steven Adeff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard<jyavenard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 8 February 2012 03:52, Yeechang Lee<ylee at pobox.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Not in my experience. After happily running Temporal 2X with a 8400GS
>>> I got a GT430 thinking Advanced 2X would be noticeably different. If
>>> there's an improvement it's too subtle for my eyes.
>>
>> The difference is noticeable in fast moving game.
>>
>> I remember a few years ago when VDPAU came out and I was experimenting.
>>
>> Where the difference was most noticeable was during a basketball game.
>>
>> With Advanced 2X, the ball could be seen flying across the screen.
>> With Temporal 2X, it was more like a blurr..
>>
>> Having said that, the difference is subtle, and I went back to using
>> the built-in 9400M IGP instead of the external NVidia 220GT (which
>> does Advanced 2X).
>>
>> Because at the end of the day, I was more keen on power saving and
>> total silence.
>>
>> On my backend/HD projector frontent, I use a GT430, honnestly, that
>> card is quiet as ... and it does HD audio
>
> I think people here are mixing up the ability to decode various
> codecs, the different VDPAU "levels", and the ability to properly do
> the various deinterlace methods, particularly Advanced 2x.
>
> I don't think anything lower than 100 for the MIXER TEMPORAL_SPATIAL
> is worthy of using Advanced 2x for sports on a larger screen, you'll
> get noticeable hiccups.
>
> It looks like from the "VDPAU testing tool thread" on nvnews that the
> 220, 240 and 8800 are the kings of processing 1080i content.
>
> The 400 and higher series do have newer VDPAU versions which allow for
> decoding of more advanced codecs, and have the "HD" audio pass through
> ability. The higher end cards in the 500 line have respectable MIXER
> TEMPORAL_SPATIAL performance, but they're expensive.
>
> If MythTV ever supports PBP with VDPAU the MIXER TEMPORAL_SPATIAL will
> be even more important and cards with anything less than 150 will not
> be good for larger TV's and sports content.
>
> Fermi is apparently the worst thing to happen to video playback.
>

I'm making a habit of being confused today:  we're still talking about 
50 or 60 Hz frame transfer rates here, aren't we?  So you're saying that 
good VDPAU can deliver individual frames at 50/60 Hz that are sharp, but 
maybe the display box is interpolating too to refresh the display at a 
higher rate?  Otherwise, and without direct visual experience, it all 
sounds a bit too much like magic.

John P