Hello,
I'm trying to follow here, but that appears to be not that easy, sorry, so I will try to summarize:
this
As far as STI boxes are concerned, the difference of original software vs enigma2 software lies in the drivers used. Drivers of original software use STAPI, an API for communicating with hardware from STi. enigma2 is not STAPI compatible, so other drivers are used that conform to DVBAPI. DVBAPI drivers for STi boxes are based to an unsupported project called "Havana" from STi. The source code of this project was leaked and most DVBAPI drivers for STi boxes are based on these sources. However, the quality of these drivers is much worse than the STAPi drivers, and thus the lower image quality in E2.
The problem from Azbox is similar, different drivers for E2 releases, not from Sigma but from other developers.
Broadcom chipset picture quality is indeed lower than STi or Sigma solutions with original drivers.
and this
OK, but this still cannot explain my below quote. I followed Ripper while he is porting the E2 to Azbox, and I remember that he told he used Sigma's API's for scaling/deinterlacing, if I'm not wrong. But the results are very different from the original firmware. Katherin users report exactly the same. So I think this problem is hardware independent and malakudi's explanation seems more logical to me. I think all developers preparing drivers to E2 use some common code (may be just for cheap and easy e2 compability ) which make the picture quality terrible.
About STi, the problem is the drivers used in enigma2 images. The code in them is derived from an unsupported project. STi chips are not well supported in the leaked code, STi doesn't support this in order to be improved and 3rd party developers don't have the skill or the knowledge of the chip specifications to improve the drivers.
I think something similar is happening for Azbox, drivers for E2 are not the same that are used in original software.
is related to STi boxes, on which E2 is being used, after being ported, correct?
Here it's understandable - especially after the explanation regarding the drivers - that abilities to improve the DVBAPI drivers for STi boxes to run E2 on them are limited by the fact, that the sources are not open / not supported by STi.
But there are also often voices, that *Broadcom* boxes with E2 do have a lower picture quality than STi boxes with appropriate / original software.
Here we have a situation, that in both cases original / compatible drivers are being used, don't we? Then the sources of the DVBAPI drivers for *Broadcom* boxes are not closed, are they?
Why does the point about drivers lose it's importance in this case (as far as I understand it), so that everything becomes a matter of the hardware:
So why STB producers cannot modify the source codes to get a better picture quality ? Simply unskilled developers are the reason ?
Scaler = hardware. There is no software involved.[...]
which makes it hopeless to expect, that Broadcom boxes will ever have a "better" picture quality? Would the only solution be to use another chip? Is there a better one from Broadcom?