Beyond3D Forum

Geo · 31-Aug-2007, 14:29

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...2777&Itemid=34

The text would suggest however, that unlike Rydermark, there might be an AMD .ppt or .pdf behind it.

no-X · 31-Aug-2007, 14:59

I bet the second one

Davros · 31-Aug-2007, 15:44

what happened in that rydermark er scandal

edit: i know what it was about but was it proved 1 way or the other

Captain Chickenpants · 31-Aug-2007, 15:53

Hmm, I don't know the specific details of the test in question but adjusting your behaviour to look good on static frames is a fairly common strategy on video.

If say the video in question is interlaced, then you have several ways in which you can display it.
You can
a) Display the two fields woven. (Known as weave)
b) Display the odd / even fields seperatly, scaling them up to fill the output. (Known as Bob)
c) Perform some kind of adaptive system where you interpolate between weave/bob depending on the characteristics of the video.

Now if you have a static scene then weave is the way to display this as it will provide twice the vertical resolution of a bobbed image and will not wobble up and down the way that bobbing can do. If however the scene is moving then weave will produce combing artifacts that look quite unpleasant, in which case bobbing is the way to go. If you have the processing power then you can determine which to do on a per pixel basis which will provide better results than either.

There are other methods out there as well, but this demonstrates that adjusting behaviour if the image is static is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If the result of this causes other artifacts then it is the fault of the test that it does not pick these up, not the fault of the gfx card/drivers.

CC

digitalwanderer · 31-Aug-2007, 15:56

More like noise reduction issue.

Captain Chickenpants · 31-Aug-2007, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

More like noise reduction issue.

Heh, yes I reread it and noticed that. Hence removed the framerate conversion reference. Although this could also produce a similar effect.

pjbliverpool · 31-Aug-2007, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

More like noise reduction issue.

It definatly is. I have had serious problems with this myself on my GTS. Thought it was my 10m VGA cable at one point

Ghosting with max noise reduction is absolutely terrible and renders any movie completely unwatchable.

However... turn noise reduction down to 50% and the ghosting completely goes away! Still great picture quality aswell.

Geo · 31-Aug-2007, 17:51

The more I hear about it the less inclined I am to apply the 'c' word to it. . .tho I think "overly aggressive optimization" sounds about right!

kyleb · 31-Aug-2007, 18:52

Looks like the same crappy temporal noise reduction we have to dissable to get decent SD video playback on ATI cards:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=676073&page=5

nicolasb · 18-Sep-2007, 18:04

The Inquirer has decided to weigh in on this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42430

Quote:

So, what do you do when you are blown out of the water? Cheat with a plausible workaround, and then spin your ass off hoping not to get caught. Well, Nvidia seems to have done both.

Captain Chickenpants · 18-Sep-2007, 18:42

It is worth mentioning that noise is not necesarily a bad thing. It is generally added to computer generated images to make it looks more realistic.
Because noise does not compress well, some codecs include the ability to remove noise at encode and insert it at decode.

CC

pjbliverpool · 18-Sep-2007, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicolasb

The Inquirer has decided to weigh in on this:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42430

I really can't stand Charlie. His verbal diaorrhoea about Vista is bad enough, but now he wants to start on NV too?

Perhaps he should go and take a look at some proper journalism over at Firingsquad were they perform a proper analysis of these GPU's video processing abilities:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...tout/page7.asp

Dave Baumann · 18-Sep-2007, 23:45

Actually, Alan's issues in that article stem from the Cyberlink player behaviour. They also shouldn't be present on a HD 2600 XT, but we can't tell what board spec he used as he didn't list it fully - Charlie appears to be using an XT.

ShaidarHaran · 19-Sep-2007, 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

I really can't stand Charlie. His verbal diaorrhoea about Vista is bad enough, but now he wants to start on NV too?

Perhaps he should go and take a look at some proper journalism over at Firingsquad were they perform a proper analysis of these GPU's video processing abilities:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...tout/page7.asp

Charlie is the only Inq writer I can even stand to read. Besides, AMD needs supporters now more than ever.

pjbliverpool · 19-Sep-2007, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaidarHaran

Charlie is the only Inq writer I can even stand to read. Besides, AMD needs supporters now more than ever.

I agree AMD needs supporters right now but blatent disinformation about NV products isn't the way to go about it.

It just reeks of his spew about Vista (ME2)

31-Aug-2007, 14:29	#1
Geo Mostly Harmless Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Uffda-land Posts: 9,156	Fudo tosses the 'c' word at NVIDIA again, this time re Pure Video http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...2777&Itemid=34 The text would suggest however, that unlike Rydermark, there might be an AMD .ppt or .pdf behind it. __________________ "We'll thrash them --absolutely thrash them."--Richard Huddy on Larrabee "Our multi-decade old 3D graphics rendering architecture that's based on a rasterization approach is no longer scalable and suitable for the demands of the future." --Pat Gelsinger, Intel ". . .its taking us longer than we would have liked to get a [Crossfire game] profiling system out there" --Terry Makedon, ATI, July 2006 "Christ, this is Beyond3D; just get rid of any fker talking about patterned chihuahuas! Can the dog write GLSL? No. Then it can fk off." --Da Boss

31-Aug-2007, 14:59	#2
no-X Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,537	I bet the second one __________________ Sorry for my English. But I hope it's better than your Czech

31-Aug-2007, 15:53	#4
Captain Chickenpants Regular Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kings Langley Posts: 433	Hmm, I don't know the specific details of the test in question but adjusting your behaviour to look good on static frames is a fairly common strategy on video. If say the video in question is interlaced, then you have several ways in which you can display it. You can a) Display the two fields woven. (Known as weave) b) Display the odd / even fields seperatly, scaling them up to fill the output. (Known as Bob) c) Perform some kind of adaptive system where you interpolate between weave/bob depending on the characteristics of the video. Now if you have a static scene then weave is the way to display this as it will provide twice the vertical resolution of a bobbed image and will not wobble up and down the way that bobbing can do. If however the scene is moving then weave will produce combing artifacts that look quite unpleasant, in which case bobbing is the way to go. If you have the processing power then you can determine which to do on a per pixel basis which will provide better results than either. There are other methods out there as well, but this demonstrates that adjusting behaviour if the image is static is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If the result of this causes other artifacts then it is the fault of the test that it does not pick these up, not the fault of the gfx card/drivers. CC __________________ Flickr

31-Aug-2007, 15:56	#5
digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 14,697	More like noise reduction issue. __________________ Elite Bastards - Adminish "All you know is when I'm with you, I make you free; and swim through your veins like a fish in the sea." - Uncle Kracker

31-Aug-2007, 17:51	#8
Geo Mostly Harmless Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Uffda-land Posts: 9,156	The more I hear about it the less inclined I am to apply the 'c' word to it. . .tho I think "overly aggressive optimization" sounds about right! __________________ "We'll thrash them --absolutely thrash them."--Richard Huddy on Larrabee "Our multi-decade old 3D graphics rendering architecture that's based on a rasterization approach is no longer scalable and suitable for the demands of the future." --Pat Gelsinger, Intel ". . .its taking us longer than we would have liked to get a [Crossfire game] profiling system out there" --Terry Makedon, ATI, July 2006 "Christ, this is Beyond3D; just get rid of any fker talking about patterned chihuahuas! Can the dog write GLSL? No. Then it can fk off." --Da Boss

31-Aug-2007, 15:44	#3
Davros Darlek ****** Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 5,987	what happened in that rydermark er scandal edit: i know what it was about but was it proved 1 way or the other

31-Aug-2007, 18:52	#9
kyleb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 4,044	Looks like the same crappy temporal noise reduction we have to dissable to get decent SD video playback on ATI cards: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=676073&page=5

18-Sep-2007, 18:42	#11
Captain Chickenpants Regular Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kings Langley Posts: 433	It is worth mentioning that noise is not necesarily a bad thing. It is generally added to computer generated images to make it looks more realistic. Because noise does not compress well, some codecs include the ability to remove noise at encode and insert it at decode. CC __________________ Flickr

18-Sep-2007, 23:45	#13
Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh... Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 12,389	Actually, Alan's issues in that article stem from the Cyberlink player behaviour. They also shouldn't be present on a HD 2600 XT, but we can't tell what board spec he used as he didn't list it fully - Charlie appears to be using an XT. __________________ Expand. Accelerate. Dominate. Tweet Tweet!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.