native resolution ( disable upscaling ) option

  Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
adam.h. Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 1
Post: #46
(2012-06-26 12:38)FernetMenta Wrote:  Yes, I do think that in general PC graphics does outperform those processors you named
well, I would not necessarily agree with this statement Wink the video processor is something different than fast video card, and if you really know details between these two, you can easily earn $100k - $150k per year Big Grin

Anyway, I think that XBMC is great sw and I love to use it, and I think it would be great if more sophisticated video processing features would be built-in. But the reality is that it is not so easy to develop it (and moreover it is not easy to give that effort to the public if you can sell it for above salary Big Grin). And I don't see anything wrong with option to provide "source" resolution output for processing with external AVR.
find quote
alfredo Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #47
As a Lumagen Radiance XS video processor owner I would say that deinterlacing, scaling and reinterlacing is way better with my processor than XBMC.

On the other hand, and as adam.h. said, switching to native resolution is way easy than trying to implement/improve the XBMC internal algorithms so why not try this method and let the user choose?
I'm pretty sure there are users waiting for this kind of settings.

Sincerely, I see no problem at all. Smile

Btw, I would prefer 480i/576i native output but if this implies a hard core redesign I agree is better to forget. Big Grin
(This post was last modified: 2012-06-26 15:56 by alfredo.)
find quote
joethefox Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 1,293
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 22
Post: #48
Have you ever seen the nvidia temporal/spatial deinterlace algorithm in action with XBMC? It's from the family of motion detection/compensation and that should be one the best in term of final result. As scaler I obtain excellent results with the nvidia HQ scaler or with the lanczos3 shader.
find quote
jpsdr Offline
Fan
Posts: 318
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 0
Post: #49
I don't think the point is to debate if some XXX graphic card can be better than some YYY video processor/HW upscaler. Please, try to avoid this kind of somehow useless debate. If this feature is "easy" to implement, implement it and let the people choose if they prefer upscale by XBMC or another HW device. (What about people who have "basic" graphic card, but a good HW upscaler ?)
I think very interesting and important for a SW wich is devoted to play video, and want to provide best quality. (And even should be almost a must for a product wich claim to play video and offer quality).
find quote
joethefox Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 1,293
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 22
Post: #50
sure! we are just talking about, it's an interesting subject.
find quote
FernetMenta Offline
Team-Kodi Developer
Posts: 3,135
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 62
Location: Munich
Post: #51
Good comment:
Quote:Awesome discussion!!!

This one can be improved:
Quote:Please, try to avoid this kind of somehow useless debate.

Nobody has said that this is a useless feature. Those kind of discussions are needed to capture requirements and are way to rare. Nobody benefits from a quickly implemented new feature where only the most obvious use case was captured. We have identified some weaknesses with regard on upscaling which can improved. In addition this also could be offloaded to an external video processor. Why not considering de-interlacing at this stage? Why hiding this feature in advanced settings? If this is something of value, users should be guided by the gui configuring XBMC to the capabilities of their receivers.
find quote
adam.h. Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 1
Post: #52
as the whole thread took around 2 years to get to this point, my little advise would be to merge the patch and then continue debating Big Grin
find quote
jmordoj Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 0
Post: #53
I was thinking, maybe this feature can work as an option of the video that is playing instead of staying "on" all the time, similar to the full screen option that some applications have, and in that environment the on screen controls are different (more simple), so you don't have to change the normal interface.

Regards

Jack
find quote
deh2k7 Offline
Donor
Posts: 440
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 5
Post: #54
I have been requesting native video output for some time as well. Glad to see work is progressing on this. I'm excited to see the results!
find quote
jpsdr Offline
Fan
Posts: 318
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 0
Post: #55
(2012-06-26 20:44)FernetMenta Wrote:  
Quote:Please, try to avoid this kind of somehow useless debate.
Nobody has said that this is a useless feature.

Neither do i. I've just said that i think the debate (and not the feature) about graphic card XXX being better than video processor YYY was useless.
find quote
adam.h. Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 1
Post: #56
Actually I would have good topic for debating, if you need one Big Grin

See here for some example source (I tried to properly scale all dimensions). So the source is 720x304, xbmc finds the best fit resolution as 720x576 (grey one) and the TV screen is 1920x1080 (blue one). Case A) shows all these original dimensions:

[Image: upscaling.jpg]

Now, when xbmc was set to default VIEW_MODE_NORMAL the final picture on the TV was very narrow - something like case B) above. When the patch forced VIEW_MODE_WIDE_ZOOM, the picture was much better - something like C) above.

Maybe this is related to the way how AVR is processing the picture, or maybe there is more obvious explanation for somebody who knows xbmc better? Because it seems that when the original dimension 720x576 (grey box on A) is upscaled by AVR to 1920x1080, we should already land in something like C), without any special upscaling on xbmc side? So the need for upscaling was something obvious for me at the beginning, but it is less and less obvious when I'm thinking about it more and more...
find quote
jmarshall Offline
Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 26,228
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 177
Post: #57
720x576 is a 4:3 resolution, so in that case XBMC is placing the image with large(ish) black bars above and below the image. The AVR is ignoring the aspect ratio so is stretching it out horizontally.

The WIDE_ZOOM image is also wrong, just not quite as wrong as XBMC is stretching the image vertically a bit and also cropping a bit off the left and right so it fills the 4:3 res a bit better. When it's stretched out by the AVR, the extra bit of vertical stretching done by XBMC counters some of the horizontal stretching done by the AVR.

Really what you want is to be able to say: use 720x576, but assume that it's actually a 16:9 image (i.e. alter the pixel aspect ratio accordingly).

Cheers,
Jonathan

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.


[Image: badge.gif]
find quote
adam.h. Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 1
Post: #58
Thanks, Jonathan. It seems that I would need two more HxW parameters and new VIEW_MODE_AVR type Wink
find quote
wsnipex Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 3,595
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 86
Post: #59
wide zoom is horribly cropping the picture on the sides. so not only the aspect ratio is wrong, but it is also missing noticable parts of the original picture on both sides.
find quote
jpsdr Offline
Fan
Posts: 318
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 0
Post: #60
Maybe a digging in HDMI spec can be interesting for supported format.

720x576 is standard PAL DVD (and also Blu-Ray SD) and it's normaly not square pixel, and it can be either a 4/3 or a 16/9 picture SD video. Information is tagged in the video encoded stream.

Assuming your source 720x304 is squared pixel :
Horizontal 720 give you 2 choice in square pixel : 720x540 for 4/3 or 720x405 for 16/9.
Best would be 16/9.
For a 16/9 picture :
Steps are :
First, add black up/down to have a 720x405 picture.
480p/29.97fps video :
Stretch it with XBMC to 720x480, and output it tagged 16/9.
576p/25fps video :
Stretch it with XBMC to 720x576, and output it tagged 16/9. => Best option if your AVR upscale to 1080p without consideration of any ratio aspect.

For a 4/3 picture :
Steps are :
First, add black up/down to have a 720x540 picture.
480p/29.97fps video :
Stretch it with XBMC to 720x480, and output it tagged 4/3.
576p/25fps video :
Stretch it with XBMC to 720x576, and output it tagged 4/3.

If video is 23.976/24fps, you have to produce 720p :
First, add black up/down to have a 720x405 picture.
Stretch it with XBMC to 1280x720.
480/576 are not square pixel, and information about picture aspect ratio (4/3 or 16/9) is to be provided, because pixel size is not fixed for these resolutions.
1280x720 and 1920x1080 are square pixel, and so picture is 16/9. 1440x1080 is not square pixel, but aspect ratio is fixed, picture is supposed to be 16/9.
(This post was last modified: 2012-06-28 19:22 by jpsdr.)
find quote
Post Reply