Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Users

PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

1 2 3 4 5

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

thom at customnetworks

Feb 15, 2005, 9:36 AM

Post #1 of 114 (6850 views)
Permalink

PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
upcoming myth box.

I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
television.

An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
the FX-5200.

Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
have a backend / front end system in the future.

Thanks.

-=/>Thom

harford at gmail

Feb 15, 2005, 9:47 AM

Post #2 of 114 (6787 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:34 -0500, Thom Paine <thom [at] customnetworks> wrote:
>
> An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
> the FX-5200.

Depends on what you want to do with the frontend. If you want to play
anything other than TV (that has not been transcoded) IMO the PVR-350
does not cut it.

Alex

thom at customnetworks

Feb 15, 2005, 9:52 AM

Post #3 of 114 (6810 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-15-02 at 09:47 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:34 -0500, Thom Paine <thom [at] customnetworks> wrote:
> >
> > An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
> > the FX-5200.
>
> Depends on what you want to do with the frontend. If you want to play
> anything other than TV (that has not been transcoded) IMO the PVR-350
> does not cut it.
>

I'd like to play DVD's, tv, recorded shows, that sort of thing.

So I'd be better off with the 350 in the backend only, or used with a
regular card with tv out?

Thanks.

-=/>Thom

pwilliamson at mandtbank

Feb 15, 2005, 9:57 AM

Post #4 of 114 (6778 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

>>> thom [at] customnetworks 2/15/2005 12:52:52 PM >>>
>On Tue, 2005-15-02 at 09:47 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:36:34 -0500, Thom Paine
<thom [at] customnetworks> wrote:
>> >
>> > An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should
I use
>> > the FX-5200.
>>
>> Depends on what you want to do with the frontend. If you want to
play
>> anything other than TV (that has not been transcoded) IMO the
PVR-350
>> does not cut it.
>>
>
>I'd like to play DVD's, tv, recorded shows, that sort of thing.
>
>So I'd be better off with the 350 in the backend only, or used with a
>regular card with tv out?
>
>Thanks.
>
>-=/>Thom

You just wasted some cash. Yes, you'd be better off with something
like a 5200 that can do all kinds of hardware decoding, not just the
TV-related stuff.

Paul

joevph at yahoo

Feb 15, 2005, 10:09 AM

Post #5 of 114 (6780 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

If you value quality over all else, then the PVR-350
(after sufficient tweaking of the GUI) is about the
best that you can get for S-Video or Composite output.

However, using the PVR-350 locks you only into viewing
MPEG-2 recordings. You can get DVD playback working
with xine or mplayer, but it will really cause a CPU
hit, since it will be using a framebuffer. I don't
know about MPEG-4 or RTJPEG recordings, because I have
dual PVR-x50's (one 250, one 350). Also, you can
forget about MythGame/xmame, and some of the
visualizations in MythMusic.

I use an FX5200 for my TV output. It works well for
everything, but there are some trade-offs to be made.
If I don't use any deinterlacing filters (but use the
nvidia settings tool to turn on anti-aliasing), then
fast scrolling messages aren't too smooth (but
everything else is pretty good). Enabling Bob fixes
this (in fact, with Bob, it's just about perfect), but
then some shows (notably cartoons where there's lots
of thin lines) are flickery. There are none of these
issues with the PVR-350 output.

-- Joe

--- Thom Paine <thom [at] customnetworks> wrote:

> I finally got my computer supplier to order me a
> PVR-350 card for my
> upcoming myth box.
>
> I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out
> to hook to my
> television.
>
> An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the
> pvr-350 or should I use
> the FX-5200.
>
> Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot
> point, as I plan to
> have a backend / front end system in the future.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -=/>Thom
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

kuhn at razorsys

Feb 15, 2005, 10:16 AM

Post #6 of 114 (6782 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i
have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry
and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it
should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..

--John

>I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
>upcoming myth box.
>
>I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
>television.
>
>An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
>the FX-5200.
>
>Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
>have a backend / front end system in the future.
>
>Thanks.
>
>-=/>Thom
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>mythtv-users mailing list
>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

ronald.kohsman at mysag

Feb 15, 2005, 10:25 AM

Post #7 of 114 (6791 views)
Permalink

RE: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

I concur with John.

Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

-r

-----Original Message-----
From: mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv
[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv] On Behalf Of John Kuhn
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i
have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry
and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it
should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..

--John

>I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
>upcoming myth box.
>
>I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
>television.
>
>An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I
use
>the FX-5200.
>
>Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
>have a backend / front end system in the future.
>
>Thanks.
>
>-=/>Thom
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>_______________________________________________
>mythtv-users mailing list
>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

brian at interlinx

Feb 15, 2005, 10:32 AM

Post #8 of 114 (6769 views)
Permalink

RE: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:25 -0500, Ronald Kohsman wrote:
> I concur with John.
>
> Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

But that is done by sending the card MPEG2 right? The card decodes the
mpeg2 and presumably sends it to the tele properly interlaced and
vsync'd? Please tell me this is not done by rendering onto a window in
the Xserver (running on the framebuffer).

So if one's mythbox is transcoding recorded mpeg2 into nuv (mpeg4 isn't
it?) how does that work with the 350's expected mpeg2 input?

b.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

paulk at parlorcity

Feb 15, 2005, 10:34 AM

Post #9 of 114 (6773 views)
Permalink

RE: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

I haven't tried other than the PVR350 and I cannot tell the difference
at all. But we only watch TV - Live or recorded.

Paul K

-----Original Message-----
From: mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv
[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv] On Behalf Of Ronald Kohsman
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:25 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I concur with John.

Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.

-r

-----Original Message-----
From: mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv
[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv] On Behalf Of John Kuhn
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut

I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i
have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry
and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it
should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..

--John

>I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
>upcoming myth box.
>
>I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
>television.
>
>An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I
use
>the FX-5200.
>
>Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
>have a backend / front end system in the future.
>
>Thanks.
>
>-=/>Thom
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>_______________________________________________
>mythtv-users mailing list
>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>

_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

harford at gmail

Feb 15, 2005, 10:38 AM

Post #10 of 114 (6782 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:32:00 -0500, Brian J. Murrell
<brian [at] interlinx> wrote:
>
> Please tell me this is not done by rendering onto a window in
> the Xserver (running on the framebuffer).
>
> So if one's mythbox is transcoding recorded mpeg2 into nuv (mpeg4 isn't
> it?) how does that work with the 350's expected mpeg2 input?

Not very well, as it's using the framebuffer rather than the mpeg2 format.

Alex

brian at interlinx

Feb 15, 2005, 10:41 AM

Post #11 of 114 (6799 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:38 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
>
> Not very well, as it's using the framebuffer rather than the mpeg2 format.

Ahhh. So if the file is MEPG2, then it uses the MPEG2 decoder, but if
it's anything other it uses it like any old other framebuffer card?

The 350 can encode and decode simultaneously, no? :-)

b.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

jeroen at fotoniq

Feb 15, 2005, 10:52 AM

Post #12 of 114 (6776 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

Now use your video card's TV-out, enable Xv (which is generally hardware
accelerated) and set the resolution to 720x576 if you are in PAL land or
720x480 for NTSC and use the bob deinterlacer. Now you have the same
fluid and smooth motion as TV with a sharp image. The trick is, that the
bob deinterlacer spits out frames at the same rate that TV's do with
fields (interlaced, half frames) while other deinterlacers do not.

I understand that the 350 is terribly slow on other material thatn
MPEG-2 since it uses a frambuffer. So much for XviD/etc watching.

-- Jeroen

Ronald Kohsman wrote:

>I concur with John.
>
>Very smooth and good clarity. Hard tell the diff from normal tele.
>
>-r
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv
>[mailto:mythtv-users-bounces [at] mythtv] On Behalf Of John Kuhn
>Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:17 PM
>To: Discussion about mythtv
>Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut
>
>I honestly have yet to see a TV-Out from a card compare to the 350.. i
>have tried the GF4mx's and also have a 5200.. everything seems blurry
>and the colors are washed out.. on the 350 everything looks like it
>should and it can keep up very well with tickers and fast motion vid..
>
>--John
>
>
>
>>I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
>>upcoming myth box.
>>
>>I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
>>television.
>>
>>An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I
>>
>>
>use
>
>
>>the FX-5200.
>>
>>Purchasing both cards right now is a bit of a moot point, as I plan to
>>have a backend / front end system in the future.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>-=/>Thom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>-
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mythtv-users mailing list
>>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mythtv-users mailing list
>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>mythtv-users mailing list
>mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>

harford at gmail

Feb 15, 2005, 10:55 AM

Post #13 of 114 (6794 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:41:49 -0500, Brian J. Murrell
<brian [at] interlinx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:38 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
> >
> > Not very well, as it's using the framebuffer rather than the mpeg2 format.
>
> Ahhh. So if the file is MEPG2, then it uses the MPEG2 decoder, but if
> it's anything other it uses it like any old other framebuffer card?
>
> The 350 can encode and decode simultaneously, no? :-)
>

Yes, but AFAIK you can't get at the encode side of the card unless
it's coming in from the tuner/svideo/composite input. :)

If the card could take raw data, I could use it to MPEG2 encode my DV
files that I grab from my video camera. That would be cool!

Alex

brian at interlinx

Feb 15, 2005, 11:00 AM

Post #14 of 114 (6771 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:55 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
>
> Yes, but AFAIK you can't get at the encode side of the card unless
> it's coming in from the tuner/svideo/composite input. :)

Ahh. Right. Forgot about that detail.

> If the card could take raw data, I could use it to MPEG2 encode my DV
> files that I grab from my video camera. That would be cool!

Indeed! I wonder if Hauppauge recognize the value of this possible
"feature". Generic hardware MPEG2 encoder. That would be uber-groovy!

b.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

brian at interlinx

Feb 15, 2005, 11:05 AM

Post #15 of 114 (6767 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Jeroen Brosens wrote:
> Now use your video card's TV-out, enable Xv (which is generally
> hardware accelerated) and set the resolution to 720x576 if you are in
> PAL land or 720x480 for NTSC and use the bob deinterlacer. Now you
> have the same fluid and smooth motion as TV with a sharp image. The
> trick is, that the bob deinterlacer spits out frames at the same rate
> that TV's do with fields (interlaced, half frames) while other
> deinterlacers do not.

See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
methodology. The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have. Record the signal
exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.

So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
perfectly, field by field. That is the only way to do it.

This is what DirectFB and the G400's TV-Out accomplishes.
Unfortunately, Myth's use of QT makes this impossible because QT does
not support DirectFB, or even SDL. SDL would be satisfactory because
SDL supports drawing on a DirectFB surface.

b.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

greatoak at gmail

Feb 15, 2005, 11:10 AM

Post #16 of 114 (6774 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

Could this be a licensing issue?

Meaning, the use of the encoder is licensed to Hauppauge. Just a
thought, I am not even sure if MPEG2 needs a license.

Just a thought.

~G

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:00 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:55 -0800, Alex Harford wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but AFAIK you can't get at the encode side of the card unless
> > it's coming in from the tuner/svideo/composite input. :)
>
> Ahh. Right. Forgot about that detail.
>
> > If the card could take raw data, I could use it to MPEG2 encode my DV
> > files that I grab from my video camera. That would be cool!
>
> Indeed! I wonder if Hauppauge recognize the value of this possible
> "feature". Generic hardware MPEG2 encoder. That would be uber-groovy!
>
> b.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

ijr at case

Feb 15, 2005, 11:19 AM

Post #17 of 114 (6762 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:05 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
> methodology. The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
> the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have. Record the signal
> exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
> Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.
>
> So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
> perfectly, field by field. That is the only way to do it.
>
> This is what DirectFB and the G400's TV-Out accomplishes.
> Unfortunately, Myth's use of QT makes this impossible because QT does
> not support DirectFB, or even SDL. SDL would be satisfactory because
> SDL supports drawing on a DirectFB surface.

Guess I'll have to remove all those SDL visualization methods in mythmusic,
and the DirectFB videoOutput class in mythtv, since they're obviously
impossible.

Isaac
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

mythtv at salfter

Feb 15, 2005, 11:32 AM

Post #18 of 114 (6775 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Thom Paine wrote:
> I finally got my computer supplier to order me a PVR-350 card for my
> upcoming myth box.
>
> I also thought about getting a FX-5200 with TV-Out to hook to my
> television.
>
> An I better or worse off using the tv-out on the pvr-350 or should I use
> the FX-5200.

For SDTV-only playback of MythTV recordings (no non-MPEG-2 video, no DVD,
etc.), the PVR-350's video output is far superior to the TV-out on a video
card. I always ran into problems with the FX5200 not aligning the fields
properly, so interlaced video (which is nearly all SD video) looked nasty.

For any kind of HDTV display, of course, the PVR-350 output won't do you any
good. Since the framebuffer on the PVR-350 is also fairly slow, playback of
DVDs, MPEG-4 video, etc. works better on a normal video card as well.

(Yes, I know that the video on DVDs is MPEG-2, but I don't know of any DVD
player software that will take advantage of the PVR-350's MPEG decoder. It
should be possible...way back in the day, I used a Dxr2 hardware MPEG
decoder to play DVDs on a 200-MHz K6.)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

papenfuss at juneau

Feb 15, 2005, 11:35 AM

Post #19 of 114 (6782 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

> See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
> methodology. The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
> the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have. Record the signal
> exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
> Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.
>
> So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
> perfectly, field by field. That is the only way to do it.
>
Isn't that what VSYNC is supposed to be for? What's the status on
this, anyway? I haven't tried since I put an NVIDIA card (MX-440) in my
machine. I'm running the VGA port at 480i speed, so syncing to the
playing MPEG2 stream would be *perfect*. Right now I need to do
deinterlacing or I get tearing.

-Cory

*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************

brian at interlinx

Feb 15, 2005, 11:40 AM

Post #20 of 114 (6780 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:19 -0500, Isaac Richards wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:05 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > See, that is totally wrong (or rather not as right as right could be)
> > methodology. The real secret to picture perfect tv-out is to display to
> > the TV _exactly_ as the original signal would have. Record the signal
> > exactly as it comes and display it back exactly as you recorded it
> > Don't post/pre-process it because of a crippled TV-Out method.
> >
> > So you record the signal field by field and then redisplay it clocked
> > perfectly, field by field. That is the only way to do it.
> >
> > This is what DirectFB and the G400's TV-Out accomplishes.
> > Unfortunately, Myth's use of QT makes this impossible because QT does
> > not support DirectFB, or even SDL. SDL would be satisfactory because
> > SDL supports drawing on a DirectFB surface.
>
> Guess I'll have to remove all those SDL visualization methods in mythmusic,
> and the DirectFB videoOutput class in mythtv, since they're obviously
> impossible.

Go back and reread what I said. I did not say Myth's use of DirectFB
was impossible (indeed it is great) nor did I say Myth's use of SDL was
impossible. What I said is that QT did not support writing on either an
SDL surface nor a DirectFB surface, which is the disappointing part
because that makes getting the OSD on DirectFB impossible.

I'm really not sure how displaying the OSD on an X-server on a G400
"matroxset" mangled framebuffer is supposed to work with the DirectFB
"layer 2" CRTC2 output anyhow since I thought the two were mutually
exclusive (i.e. framebuffer/X11 needing the maven kernel module and
DirectFB requiring no maven kernel module).

I did try it and all I got was the video playing in a small square in
the top right of the screen.

b.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

brian at interlinx

Feb 15, 2005, 11:44 AM

Post #21 of 114 (6778 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:35 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> Isn't that what VSYNC is supposed to be for?

Exactly. The G400 (probably others) is able to interrupt on the vsync
pulse allowing the driver and software above it to know when the vsync
has happened and thus when to load the next frame into video memory
(frame flip).

But AFAIK, X11 does not support vsyncing. There is no way for an X11
application to know when the vsync pulse has hit so it can't really know
when to frame flip.

Also the video hardware has to be able to encode to TV-Out in an
interlaced overscanned mode. I have only seen the G400 able to do this
properly with DirectFB's help. matroxset and X11 and the framebuffer
don't do it properly.

> Right now I need to do
> deinterlacing or I get tearing.

Yup. Exactly.

b.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.18 KB)

gaberubin at gmail

Feb 15, 2005, 11:48 AM

Post #22 of 114 (6774 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

I understand the general consensus is pvr output > video card with
s-vid out, but what about a regular video card with a VGA->Composite
converter. Would that rival the pvr output with the added bonus of
playing any format thrown at it?

lists at ebourne

Feb 15, 2005, 11:59 AM

Post #23 of 114 (6778 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:40 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I'm really not sure how displaying the OSD on an X-server on a G400
> "matroxset" mangled framebuffer is supposed to work with the DirectFB
> "layer 2" CRTC2 output anyhow since I thought the two were mutually
> exclusive (i.e. framebuffer/X11 needing the maven kernel module and
> DirectFB requiring no maven kernel module).

I think that one's a losing battle. DFB runs CRTC2 in YUV mode on G400
to reduce the amount of data transferred over the pci bus, and reduce
the amount of computation. That doesn't do the OSD any favours.

Cheers,

Martin.

ijr at case

Feb 15, 2005, 11:59 AM

Post #24 of 114 (6771 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:44 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:35 -0500, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> > Isn't that what VSYNC is supposed to be for?
>
> Exactly. The G400 (probably others) is able to interrupt on the vsync
> pulse allowing the driver and software above it to know when the vsync
> has happened and thus when to load the next frame into video memory
> (frame flip).
>
> But AFAIK, X11 does not support vsyncing. There is no way for an X11
> application to know when the vsync pulse has hit so it can't really know
> when to frame flip.
>
> Also the video hardware has to be able to encode to TV-Out in an
> interlaced overscanned mode. I have only seen the G400 able to do this
> properly with DirectFB's help. matroxset and X11 and the framebuffer
> don't do it properly.

Guess I'll have to remove the vsync code from the Xv/XvMC output at well.

Isaac
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

ijr at case

Feb 15, 2005, 12:00 PM

Post #25 of 114 (6771 views)
Permalink

Re: PVR-350 vs FX-5200 TVOut [In reply to]

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 02:40 pm, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Go back and reread what I said. I did not say Myth's use of DirectFB
> was impossible (indeed it is great) nor did I say Myth's use of SDL was
> impossible. What I said is that QT did not support writing on either an
> SDL surface nor a DirectFB surface, which is the disappointing part
> because that makes getting the OSD on DirectFB impossible.

Huh? Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or are you just making
things up as you go? Qt has absolutely nothing to do with the OSD in mythtv.

Isaac
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

1 2 3 4 5

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads