147 replies to this topic

[hemispherical1]

I'm pretty sure I'm right, I just add things like "I believe" so I don't sound like a know it all...


--
hemi

[mcv83]

Hi,
I've discovered this thread about "bad quality picutre" and I'm experiencing the same with my VU+ Ultimo. I guess I don't know how to set it up to get the best quality, so maybe someone can give me a piece of advice...
So, my VU+ send out 1080i50. It goes through my AV Onkyo with Qdeo treatment and becomes a 1080p50 signal.
It's send to my samsung PS64D8000.

Which set up to chose on my vu+ to have a better picture? (for parameter AV, videoenhencement, Autoresolution) ?
Thanks for your help.

If your AV receiver is doing the deinterlacing and upscaling, then it is generally better to output 576i for SD channels.
For HD channels you can output 1080i.
To automatically switch between the resolution, you can install the 'AutoResolution' plugin.

Thanks for your answer.
So how precisely should I set up the vu+?
In Parameter AV : I put 1080i50Hz?
In autoresolution :
do I have to put 576i to all SD Interlace mode and HD interlace mode? (for 25/50Hz, and 30/60hz)?
Do I have to change something to HD mode entrelacement and HD mode Progessif?
And last part : does this won't gives a display delay when changing from a SD to a HD channel?

Thanks again for your help.

[buyukbang]

When scaler algorithms are applied by different chipsets with different approaches, SD Pictures will be displayed totally different. I'm pretty sure that you never experienced better picture quality of the boxes mentioned on the thread title. Or if you tested these boxes, then you shouldn't really pay importance for picture quality on details, which could make you miss the difference.

Sorry, no offence, but believe or not, this is exactly not a urban legend or a physicological illision. I know videophiles using measuring devices for PQ. There is a huge difference that makes most videophiles to trash their boxes with broadcom and e2 and buy the mentioned boxes. I'm not one of them, because I cannot give up e2, in particular PLi, because of its fantastic flexibility. But I'm also just want to have a good picture quality, desperately !

Sigh... There is nothing wrong with the broadcom chipset! DIGITAL = DIGITAL = DIGITAL! SD = SD = SD!

Edited by buyukbang, 24 May 2012 - 10:26.

[gorski]

OK: http://www.zetacast....Beyond_HDTV.pdf

By the year 2020, it is assumed that and that the consumer demand for stereoscopic TV will be
either proved or disproved. If there is confirmed consumer demand, it is assumed that both the
broadcaster and the consumer would be willing to invest in the infrastructure and equipment
necessary to deliver full 1080p/50 HDTV resolution video to each eye.

I think I read about BskyB experiments with 1080p... Must find....

Btw, have you seen this: http://www.whathifi....-audio-dropouts

http://www.trustedre...asting-in-1080p

It's Freeview but...

Edited by gorski, 24 May 2012 - 10:27.

[Erik Slagter]

I think I read about BskyB experiments with 1080p... Must find....

That is 1080p25, the exact same number of frames as 1080i50, most of the bitstream is also exactly the same, there is only a few bits in the h264 stream that say the content should be displayed progressive or interlaced, that's all. BSkyB does NOT use 1080p50, let's have that clear. DVB-S has no provision for 1080p50.

[Roodkapke]

When scaler algorithms are applied by different chipsets with different approaches, SD Pictures will be displayed totally different.

I think the problem is not these different approaches.
Digital signals should be left as is.
No messing whatsoever should be done.
The biggest problem is people who set their box to always output 1080i.
Output should be in the original format, so scaling is not activated.
Scalers mess up the picture and will degrade the clean digital output.
The quality of the used scalers in satellite equipment is generally poor.
The general thought that 1080i is better then the original signal is simply not correct.
And if the digital output is not messed with you simply cannot get a different picture quality.

[Erik Slagter]

When scaler algorithms are applied by different chipsets with different approaches, SD Pictures will be displayed totally different. I'm pretty sure that you never experienced better picture quality of the boxes mentioned on the thread title. Or if you tested these boxes, then you shouldn't really pay importance for picture quality on details, which could make you miss the difference.

Like I said, SD remains SD. If you really are desperate for good picture quality, use HD feeds and then you will see "picture quality" is the same for all chipsets (provided all "enhancements" are disabled). Apparently broadcom has chosen to display SD more or less transparently and to focus on HD. Other chipset manufacturers may have gone out of their way to process SD material to make it look better to the human eye, agreed. But to me that's meaningless. The picture quality will never be that of HD, it's window dressing.

Also, people that complain about "picture quality" really should be complaining about "too little image processing on SD material to make it pleasing to the eye". That sounds completely different!

[buyukbang]

I think you're mentioning about the "auto resolution" plugin. I tried it but it gave a way worse picture quality and blinking (= extra waiting) time while zapping. Unfortunately this is not my cup of tea. I believe we have every right to demand the same PQ on broadcam+e2 as others after spending lots of money for full featured boxes.

When scaler algorithms are applied by different chipsets with different approaches, SD Pictures will be displayed totally different.

I think the problem is not these different approaches.
Digital signals should be left as is.
No messing whatsoever should be done.
The biggest problem is people who set their box to always output 1080i.
Output should be in the original format, so scaling is not activated.
Scalers mess up the picture and will degrade the clean digital output.
The quality of the used scalers in satellite equipment is generally poor.
The general thought that 1080i is better then the original signal is simply not correct.
And if the digital output is not messed with you simply cannot get a different picture quality.

[buyukbang]

Woow, that's genius, I could never think that fantastic solution !

But there is a problem, most of the SD channels does not have their HD version? What should I do for them ?

Oh, wait wait wait ! I can easily delete them from my channel list, then everything will be wonderful ! This time I found the genius solution by myself

Like I said, SD remains SD. If you really are desperate for good picture quality, use HD feeds and then you will see "picture quality" is the same for all chipsets (provided all "enhancements" are disabled).

[WanWizard]

You can debate about the quality of the scalers in the different SoC platforms, but they are a fact of life, you have to live with it after you have decided to buy the box containing the platform.

If you don't want to live with that fact of life, don't buy such a box. It's as simple as that, we can not change the characteristics of the SoC's used.

What we can do, and what we do, is give you advise on how to get the best from your box, given the limitations.

And one of the tips is "don't use the scaler, send the digital stream unaltered either to the TV, or to an AV receiver with a much better scaler".

[Roodkapke]

No, i'm not mentioning the autoresolution plugin.
It's a weird contraption.
To get the best result, simply let SD be untouched by any scaler.
That will provide the best picture quality.

[Erik Slagter]

BTW my stb really scales better than my television does, so autoresolution is not the solution for me. But on the other hand I simply accept that SD quality = SD quality.

@buyukbang: once again, the discussion is not about picture quality. Technically speaking the broadcoms offer the best picture quality, because they alter the (SD) picture the least. What you are searching/demanding for, is modification of the picture so it LOOKS better. That is not the same as quality in technical terms. So what you're saying here is that you're looking for the same (SD) picture modification in the broadcom SoC's as is in the Sigma's. Well it's in not there, end of story. Broadcom apparently decided to provide the picture as transparantly as possible, which I think is a good decision.

And really no SoC will suply you with HD quality channels if they aren't there...

[buyukbang]

@wanwizard,

I did not started this thread to expect something from PLi team members. Information sharing was my only target and personally I'm satisfied with the results especially after Ripper's last comments. Now, I know there is nothing todo with E2, it's chipset and its drivers/API application that can help PQ.


@Erik Slater,
SD never will be SD on a HD display. There will be a scaling that will be done by STB or TV when resolutions are different between source and the target. Moreover, I can't aggree on the claim that say broadcom is more trasnparent. It scales the picture and gives bad result, this cannot be called as more transparent.

[korsan]

On VuDuo when on 1080i mode, you can set the scaler sharpness to leftmost, then I think the scaler is set to default or off for 576i SD channels?

[buyukbang]

Mate,

I tried the sliders you mentioned but all settings have its negative effect on different use cases. Some causes even worse picture on the channels with low bandwith, some causes detail lose on HD channels... So I disabled (set to 0 ) them. Unfortunately this is not easy as this. As ripper mentioned, there shoud be much more detailed parameters supported by the chipset and of course we need an interface to modify their values on the fly.

On VuDuo when on 1080i mode, you can set the scaler sharpness to leftmost, then I think the scaler is set to default or off for 576i SD channels?

[Erik Slagter]

The "scaler sharpness" is disabled on (true) HD channels, so it's safe to use it.

[korsan]

I found a table:
http://imageshack.us...xtrenddmvu.png/

Please compare below with VuDuo and other boxes:
-Interner Deinterlacer
-Scaler scharfe/...

[WanWizard]

@buyukbang,

What bothers me in this discussion is that your statements create the perception (for the less informed reader) of poor quality of the different boxes, of Enigma2, and in relation what OpenPLi does.

Fact remains:
1. the hardware receives a digital bitstream
2. this signal may or may not be modified by features in the SoC
3. it is then send as a digital bitstream to your TV
4. this signal may or may not be modified by features in the TV
5. your TV translates the bitstream to something you can see

First, steps 1 and 3 are digital, and do not relate to changes in the way you see the end result. steps 2, 4 and 5 might.

The statement made by Erik is if you disable step 2 (i.e. choose not to modify anything), the resulting image on your TV in your specific setup will be exactly the same, regardless of the SoC you use. So if at the end of the chain the quality is different, the only reason can be that for the two platforms you compare, step 2 is handled differently.

Now, it could be that the Broadcoms are not as good as some other SoC's in postprocessing of the digital signal, or that the drivers of a particular platform don't allow you to tune the SoC properly, or that you have chosen the wrong setup or configuration. And that might result in a difference in the end result.

The only conclusion you can draw from this is that maybe one SoC has a better scaler/deinterlacers/whatever feature then another.

This is probably true, and fine by me.

But the image can (in terms of quality) never be better then the data you receive, so if I disable all features on both boxes, I connect them to my Lumagen Radiance, which in turn connects to my professional range plasma, the end result will be exactly the same.

Any feature you will enable will alter the signal, and while you might percieve it as being a better picture, technically it is altered from the original. Which perhaps means that the original input signal wasn't too good, so the SoC could visually improve something. Fine. But that has nothing to do with picture quality, but with your personal perception of what is better...

[Erik Slagter]

Any feature you will enable will alter the signal, and while you might percieve it as being a better picture, technically it is altered from the original. Which perhaps means that the original input signal wasn't too good, so the SoC could visually improve something. Fine. But that has nothing to do with picture quality, but with your personal perception of what is better...

Which is exactly what I am trying to explain the whole time. A SD picture may be perceived better if modified. but technically speaking the quality is less because it less resembles the original. So fine if one prefers to look at an "enhanced" picture, but you can never call it "better quality".

[schattenmann]

Hello,

thanks for the detailed reply, WanWizard!

[...]
Any feature you will enable will alter the signal, and while you might percieve it as being a better picture, technically it is altered from the original. Which perhaps means that the original input signal wasn't too good, so the SoC could visually improve something. Fine. But that has nothing to do with picture quality, but with your personal perception of what is better...

While the term "picture quality" might be wrong technically based on your explanation, let's be honest: people just can't call it differently, since that's what it comes down to, if everyone is trying to value what (s)he sees. Since there are really a lot of statements on dozens of different forums, which state that "picture quality" of STI / sh4 boxes is (much) better compared to broadcom boxes, there simply *is* something common regarding this among very many people. So I think we shouldn't try to rip apart any terms used, but try to find common ground about the core issue.

It is resulting in this in my opinion

[...]Now, it could be that the Broadcoms are not as good as some other SoC's in postprocessing of the digital signal, or that the drivers of a particular platform don't allow you to tune the SoC properly, or that you have chosen the wrong setup or configuration. And that might result in a difference in the end result.

The only conclusion you can draw from this is that maybe one SoC has a better scaler/deinterlacers/whatever feature then another.

and in this, again:

[...]Any feature you will enable will alter the signal, and while you might percieve it as being a better picture, technically it is altered from the original. Which perhaps means that the original input signal wasn't too good, so the SoC could visually improve something. Fine. [...]

That's exactly what the whole thread is about as far as I understand it. At least that was what I've mentioned in my reply in post #54

Very many people are of the opinion, that SD material upscaled to 1080i "looks better" than the original. Not everyone probably, but very many, that's a fact. So we are already talking about upscaling, which seems to be handled better by STi boxes than by broadcom boxes.

Once malakudi has explained the driver situation (see both quotes in my reply in post #54 it became clear, that not much can be done for E2 being used on STi boxes. Ok and fine.

That's why I've asked about the apparently worse results of upscaling with E2 on *broadcom* boxes. Here the drivers problem doesn't matter, since there is no need to use the closed STAPI drivers. DVBAPI drivers are nor closed as far as I understand it and so it should be possible for developers to improve them etc.

Is this not possible?
If not: why? Would it only work with another chip (like STi)?

That's all I wanted to know, but replies like

Sigh... There is nothing wrong with the broadcom chipset! DIGITAL = DIGITAL = DIGITAL! SD = SD = SD!

are not very helpful and a bit one sided, sorry.

It's clear, that it's difficult to not possible to measure the "improvements" on the drivers, but see it from the other side: there are only voices about worse "picture quality" from the owners of broadcom / ALI boxes. STi people don't complain about. Often people were comparing the results directly at the same time and results are very often in favor of STi boxes, so there must be something technical responsive for this and that's what the thread is about to find out what it is and how it can be improved for broadcom boxes.

Under these circumstances I would say it doesn't matter, if "picture quality" is the correct term technically and also the whole stuff about not upscaled material is more or less pointless (although interesting to know), because it's about upscaling SD material, which is mostly considered better by many people, i.e. better than unchanged SD material and about the differences in doing so between STi and broadcom.

Edited by schattenmann, 24 May 2012 - 18:11.