52 replies to this topic

[eozen81]

Hi all,

I hope this is the right place to ask this question, if not please forgive me.

 

My question is: for my Solo2 I have flashed OpenPLi-3.0-beta-vusolo2-20130519_usb.zip and installed latest drivers from http://archive.vuplu...wnload/drivers/ and reboothed but Solo2 did not boot again, stuck at "Starting" screen. When will you release a stable version which will support latest Solo2 drivers please?

 

This is important because with latest kernel 3.3.8-2.0, Solo2 got very serious updates.

[WanWizard]

The new drivers need a kernel update, you can't just install them.

[eozen81]

The new drivers need a kernel update, you can't just install them.

 

Hello, you mean we need to wait new releases from PLi?

[WanWizard]

Yes, you need to wait for a kernel upgrade.

[eozen81]

Thank you for the confirmation. I hope it's on the way 

[Erik Slagter]

Keep watching the commit logs...

 

BTW what is it you need specifically from the new drivers?

Edited by Erik Slagter, 20 May 2013 - 16:43.

[Gi 9995 Owner]

BTW what is it you need specifically from the new drivers?

If for Ultima were new drivers, then from the transition to the new kernel in person I would have expected it here first:

But even those drivers who are now, OpenPli better picture quality than the other images.
I do not know how you have achieved this, but ... it's very good!
Thank you!

[Rob van der Does]

I do not know how you have achieved this, but ... it's very good!
Thank you!OpenPli better picture quality than the other images.

Hehe, there we go again: PQ is only driver-dependant....

[Erik Slagter]

PQ is only SOURCE-dependant, actually.

[Erik Slagter]

BTW what is it you need specifically from the new drivers?

If for Ultima were new drivers, then from the transition to the new kernel in person I would have expected it here first:

But even those drivers who are now, OpenPli better picture quality than the other images.
I do not know how you have achieved this, but ... it's very good!
Thank you!

The "great picture quality improvement" is actually a bug in the deinterlacer that's been solved. So now it's as good (or bad) as any other receiver...

 

Probably it manifests itself only when upscaling SD to HD (as usual), because HD content is perfectly fine.

[Rob van der Does]

I do not know how you have achieved this, but ... it's very good!
Thank you!OpenPli better picture quality than the other images.

Hehe, there we go again: PQ is only driver-dependant....

 

 

PQ is only SOURCE-dependant, actually.

OK, to be exact then: given a specific source, the PQ is only driver dependant.

In other words: in an image only the driver is responsible for the PQ (although the user can still ruin it by wrong settings in VideoEnhancement (or the equivalent of the telly).

[Rob van der Does]

The "great picture quality improvement" is actually a bug in the deinterlacer that's been solved. So now it's as good (or bad) as any other receiver...

 

Probably it manifests itself only when upscaling SD to HD (as usual), because HD content is perfectly fine.

 

The only thing I could establish as being better is when the output is set to 1080p: now 'news tickers' are really good, which wasn't the case before.

[MiLo]

OK, to be exact then: given a specific source, the PQ is only driver dependant.

To be even more exact:

Given a specific source for the decoder, the bitstream coming out of the HDMI must be (bitwise) equal to the reference signal.

If it isn't, either the decoder is using some form of post-processing, or the decoder is faulty.

It never fails to amaze me that people seem to have no difficulty accepting bit-perfect reproduction in a digital audio system, but for some reason the same property for a digital video system is suddenly surrounded with all kinds of black magic.

If you store a text file on your harddisk, and read it back, and then discover that it isn't equal to the original, you'd certainly consider the system faulty. The same logic applies to a digital video system. If it (unintentionally) alters the data, it's faulty.

It reminds me of the days of analog amplifiers, with people having all sorts of weird notions about what would "sound better". A colleague wrapped it in a hilarious, but true, statement: "Tubes sound different than transistors only when you break them." It's basically the same here. Reproduction quality, whether audio or video, is about being as close to the original as possible.

[Trial]

Hi,

concerns about PQ mostly come when SD is used and there is a difference between different brand of scaler and different driver/settings. I think I never heard a complain about the HD PQ.

 

Ralf

[Rob van der Does]

OK, to be exact then: given a specific source, the PQ is only driver dependant.

To be even more exact:

Given a specific source for the decoder, the bitstream coming out of the HDMI must be (bitwise) equal to the reference signal.......

But if the resolution of the source doesn't match that of the output, some kind of processing needs to be done. And that's where the drivers show what they are worth.

[MiLo]

But if the resolution of the source doesn't match that of the output, some kind of processing needs to be done. And that's where the drivers show what they are worth.

Actually, it'll be the chipset doing the work, the drivers are only involved in setting the parameters. With most boxes using the same chipset, don't expect much difference...

As for scaling, I'd expect the TV to do a better job, because the TV "knows" about its own physical characteristics. And picking a scaling algorithm is more about "appropriate" than about "quality".

It's mostly when your box crashes or when the remote control fails to respond that you notice what the drivers are worth...

[Rob van der Does]

But if the resolution of the source doesn't match that of the output, some kind of processing needs to be done. And that's where the drivers show what they are worth.

Actually, it'll be the chipset doing the work, the drivers are only involved in setting the parameters. With most boxes using the same chipset, don't expect much difference...

As for scaling, I'd expect the TV to do a better job, because the TV "knows" about its own physical characteristics. And picking a scaling algorithm is more about "appropriate" than about "quality".

I guess you know very well what role exactly the drivers play for getting the most out of the hardware. And the 'most boxes using the same chipset' can't possibly relate to the Solo2: I know of only one other box using the same SoC (and that box doesn't do a good job in the PQ-area)..

 

And indeed: I do think that many TV's will do a better job in scaling then STB's. But that requires the AutoResolution plugin to be used (and correctly configured). And it is in that area that the latest Solo2 drivers are (supposed to be) doing a better job then before.

[Gi 9995 Owner]

PQ is only SOURCE-dependant, actually.

Maybe so, but ...

I visually compared the PQ of three of the images:
1. VTi
2. BH
3. OpenPli

Post-processing is not used. Scaler Sharpness = 0

VTi - picture a little darker than I would like, sharpness is good.

BH - too little darker than I would like , sharpness is inadequate.

OpenPli - the picture is bright, clear and precise (rings, like a string )

[Erik Slagter]

concerns about PQ mostly come when SD is used and there is a difference between different brand of scaler and different driver/settings. I think I never heard a complain about the HD PQ.

Exactly!

And you know what, how can one complain about picture quality, when the input is SD? It will never become HD, not even near!

[kota]

Interesting stuff. Please keep on posting ...