Tweaked Vista MCE blows away XBMC's video playback quality... :(
#16
so everyone agrees Vista MCE beats XBMC in terms of quality? I can hardly notice any difference...
Reply
#17
junk Wrote:so everyone agrees Vista MCE beats XBMC in terms of quality? I can hardly notice any difference...

Hardly in favor of what?
Reply
#18
junk Wrote:so everyone agrees Vista MCE beats XBMC in terms of quality? I can hardly notice any difference...

It does for me, but the same goes for any player on my computer that uses the system codecs (MCE, WMP, Media Player Classic). They all use CoreAVC for the x264 content and it all plays back flawlessly. The CPU usage rarely jumps above 25% on 1080p while the same movie on XBMC is 60% and it plays a little less smoothly.

Has there been any thought to having XBMC just use the system codecs instead of mplayer or would that basically be like starting over from scratch?
Reply
#19
LaTropa, read this http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=40264

Also, lower CPU load does not equate with better quality. Even if your CPU has a load average at 80%, what is important is that it doesn't spike too high, causing you to lose frames.

You should frame by frame comparisons of the same material decoded by DVDplayer (the media player in XBMC) and your standard Windows player, with CoreAVC. Then you could tell which player gives you better quality with x264 content.
Reply
#20
ashlar Wrote:LaTropa, read this http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=40264

Also, lower CPU load does not equate with better quality. Even if your CPU has a load average at 80%, what is important is that it doesn't spike too high, causing you to lose frames.

You should frame by frame comparisons of the same material decoded by DVDplayer (the media player in XBMC) and your standard Windows player, with CoreAVC. Then you could tell which player gives you better quality with x264 content.

As usual, I don't agree with you.. You should not do a frame by frame comparison, because we're not talking about static pictures here but full blown action packed video sequences.. We're talking about an overall experience and not comparing bits and bytes side by side.. People have to let go of the visual technical details a bit and focus more on the overall experience..

I also find that using dedicated codecs to play some content does result in a better overal experience of the video material. And this is the core functionality of XBMC.

Also the link you supply is getting a bit outdated IMHO.. The risk of rigorously sticking to the same video core for all platforms is, that you have to take all the downsides from all the platforms into consideration.
In the time of the single xbox implementation, sticking to a single decoder core was a perfect choice, XBMC has served us more than very well over the years.

In my opinion, in this time and age, it would be better to make a seperate layer for decoding video in which you can address platform specific issues and also use platform specific advantages (like i.e. hardware acceleration).
Reply
#21
us1111, I agree with you almost entirely. If I gave the impression that I am against a dedicated video playback engine for Windows, I gave the wrong impression.

But it's important that we respect the developers point of view. If they will manage to get optimal results on all platforms, while managing to stick to a cross platform approach, it's going to be an awesome achievement.

If they won't manage to do that, I feel that sooner or later something will happen. But it's really early to judge. Probably the only thing I don't entirely agree with is calling Atlantis a "release". There many things to iron out and probably too many people expect too much from it.

Regarding the "frame by frame", I misspoke. What I meant is that having a lower CPU requirement does not automatically translate in a better video quality. The important thing is to be compliant with h264 decompression standards (while maybe offering some tradeoff in quality-compliancy for people with lower specced hardware).

Edit: let's not forget that DVDplayer has probably the best implementation of ISO-->playback of any player I've seen. That's important to lots of people that have .iso archives of all their DVDs. It would be a shame to leave that behind (as is the case if you, today, go the external player route).
Reply
#22
IMO, if the devs take the built-in XBMC player and give the option for it to use external codecs this may be the best of everything... x-platform if used native + platform specific if external codecs are chosen to be used.
I'm not an expert but I play one at work.
Reply
#23
(Forgive a n00bSmile
Or why not make the embedded codecs be the best codecs? What am I missing?
Reply
#24
junk Wrote:(Forgive a n00bSmile
Or why not make the embedded codecs be the best codecs? What am I missing?
Nothing. That's the goal of developers. Unless I'm seriously mistaken.
Reply
#25
junk Wrote:(Forgive a n00bSmile
Or why not make the embedded codecs be the best codecs? What am I missing?

Yeah.. In theory that would be the perfect world.. However making the "best codecs" run fast and optimized on all platforms is one heck of a task.

I don't think that even the XBMC developers (for which i have a tremendous lot of respect) can pull that of. FFMpeg is a very good platform, but not the best for all uses..

I agree with livin that maybe including an option to use alternative codecs is the way to go. In my opinion it should be possible to choose the internal ffmpeg or external codecs by looking at the extension. In that way, the ease of for example ISO's can be kept, while optimizing towards the OS tuned codecs for others.

I dunno if this is possible..
Reply
#26
I think the problem for the guys who complain is that XBMC's is due to the fact that XBMC's DVDPlayer (the video player in XBMC for Linux/Mac/Windows) does not currently offer any video postprocessing features (so today if the source video is crap then XBMC will currently display crap), ...postprocessing is however something which FFDshow does and it help hide issues with crappy source videos (so with postprocessing crap in does not necessary mean crap out, or it at least not perceived so visually by the majority of users). Further discussion on this topic here => http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=40872
Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Tweaked Vista MCE blows away XBMC's video playback quality... :(0