LAV Filters - DirectShow Media Splitter and Decoders

[e-t172]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

Just from a technical standpoint, 4K is desperately needed. A small 22" Screen has already 1080p today, heck the new 10" iPad has a higher resolution then that, still a 50" TV (or even bigger) has the same resolution?

AFAIK, when seating at the THX/SMPTE recommended viewing distance relative to the screen size, the human eye is pretty much unable to resolve detail past 1080p. See this discussion about viewing distance versus resolution. I suspect that's why the 1080p resolution was decided on in the first place.

Your argument about high resolution tablets and PC monitors does not take into account the fact that the typical viewing distance is not the same with these devices.

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by e-t172

AFAIK, when seating at the THX/SMPTE recommended viewing distance relative to the screen size, the human eye is unable to resolve detail past 1080p. See this discussion about viewing distance versus resolution.

Thats not the point, at all.
So we should never build better screens, ever?

[kalston]

Tbh I find it ridiculous to have 1080p on 22" monitor when CRTs could do better with ease. 1080p may be fine for watching films but for gaming/working we could definitely benefit from more pixels. The iPhone4's screen looks amazing because of the super high pixel density, and I reckon the new iPad does too.
4k is a welcome evolution as far as I'm concerned (even though I couldn't play games on that with my current GPU )

[DragonQ]

The Galaxy S3 is supposed to have a 1080p screen.

It totally depends on viewing distance as well as the size of the screen though and there are other things that should have a higher priority than moving to 4k. For example, abolishing interlacing once and for all (in the digital realm it makes no sense - 1080p/50 requires barely any more bits to encode than 1080i/25 so why not use it??) and ensuring HDTV has decent bitrates (right now they look very good but they could look excellent if they weren't so bit-starved).

[nevcairiel]

Thats all very different issues. You're mixing hardware (ie. your TV) with content and content providers.

Of course content has to improve as well, get rid of interlacing and improve quality overall, but that could all be done in todays hardware. Higher bitrates, less chroma subsampling, no interlacing, all possible with todays TVs.
However the hardware also has to move forward. If you don't push the hardware, the content has no reason to follow.

[e-t172]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

So we should never build better screens, ever?

If there's no perceivable difference in the typical use case, then they're not "better screens", they're the same as far as the consumer is concerned.

IMO, pushing 4K for video is like pushing 96kHz/24bit for audio: technically it's "better", in practice it's useless and a waste of money and resources. There are far more interesting things to do, like 10 bit, getting rid of interlacing, improving contrast and color accuracy, power consumption, or even improving 3D.

Of course, I'm only talking about video here. I can clearly see the advantages of high resolution screens when using a PC for any serious work. But then again, the viewing distance is much shorter, so it makes sense.

[Solace]

is there any way to force intels sandy bridge GPU to do the decoding with the LAV codec? but with a dedicated card in place already. does the codec support virtu would be a better question.

[Andy o]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

Of course content has to improve as well, get rid of interlacing and improve quality overall, but that could all be done in todays hardware. Higher bitrates, less chroma subsampling, no interlacing, all possible with todays TVs.

Not with my last-gen (and "highest-rated") Kuro KRP-500, it doesn't. But of course, that sweet sweet denial we Kuro owners still tells me my screen is AWESOME. I do secretly wish video doesn't improve chroma subsampling any time soon though, cause I'd be screwed then. But don't tell anyone.

Originally Posted by e-t172

If there's no perceivable difference in the typical use case, then they're not "better screens", they're the same as far as the consumer is concerned.

IMO, pushing 4K for video is like pushing 96kHz/24bit for audio: technically it's "better", in practice it's useless and a waste of money and resources. There are far more interesting things to do, like 10 bit, getting rid of interlacing, improving contrast and color accuracy, power consumption, or even improving 3D.

Of course, I'm only talking about video here. I can clearly see the advantages of high resolution screens when using a PC for any serious work. But then again, the viewing distance is much shorter, so it makes sense.

I don't think it's "useless". Why should we conform to THX standards? Make higher res screens; make them bigger and/or sit closer. It's like the difference in a regular theater and a proper IMAX one.

I do think the way content is going, it's stalling in quality. I don't see much of a bright future for blu-ray, and even less another physical format, and streaming is not going to even approach its quality soon at all.

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by Andy o

Not with my last-gen (and "highest-rated") Kuro KRP-500, it doesn't. But of course, that sweet sweet denial we Kuro owners still tells me my screen is AWESOME. I do secretly wish video doesn't improve chroma subsampling any time soon though, cause I'd be screwed then. But don't tell anyone.

You're already screwed.
There will always be manufacturers that try to save money on the wrong ends. Most TVs do processing in 4:2:2, which is still not ideal but for movie content the difference to full 4:4:4 is far less noticeable then your 4:2:0

[wanezhiling]

But untill now only VP5 can really do a 4k job, so nev you wont get more feedback cuz few people own a GT520,GTX680..

On my poor GT520, LAV CUVID is too slow to do a 4k decoding.. what about your 680?

[nevcairiel]

4K decoding on VP5 only gives around 35-40 fps.
So any 4k @ 24p file will work just fine, and should probably also work on the 520.

50p/60p samples will of course not work fast enough.
In real world content, even at 1080p, 50p or 60p samples are very rare, and at this time 24, 25 and 30 fps are over 90% of all content.

[wanezhiling]

Well, Duckstakeoff@30fps@246M works well with "EVR + CUVID" not madVR, poor gt520 was totally killed by madVR..

[nevcairiel]

Well of course, madVR uses more performance then the 520 has.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by e-t172

AFAIK, when seating at the THX/SMPTE recommended viewing distance relative to the screen size, the human eye is pretty much unable to resolve detail past 1080p. See this discussion about viewing distance versus resolution.

Sorry, but after reading that link, I come to different conclusions. Two points from that discussion:

(1) The author mentions that for his screen size (123" width), a human with 20/20 vision would be able to fully resolve 1080p at a viewing distance of 16 feet.
(2) For a 123" width screen, THX recommends a viewing distance of 13.7 feet.

So obviously with a 20/20 vision, at the THX recommended viewing distance you can resolve more than 1080p. Maybe not much more, but a little bit more.

Now consider that if you have more than one seating row, you will likely place them "around" the recommend viewing distance. Some will be nearer than recommended, some further away. Those nearer than recommended viewing distance will resolve even more than "a little bit more than 1080p".

Also consider that if the display resolution is smaller than what your eyes can resolve, the pixel structure may start to negatively impact the image quality. We don't want to see rectangular pixels. So IMHO the projected image should always have *higher* resolution than our eyes can resolve (see iPad and iPhone "Retina" displays). Which means that if you sit at the recommend THX distance, with a 20/20 vision, you need more than 1080p, or else the pixel structure will negatively impact the image quality. This problem could be solved with properly upscaled 2K content and a 4K projector, though.

Furthermore, the THX recommendation is for 16:9, I think. I find that with my CIH projection setup, I like to sit at the same distance for 16:9 and Cinemascope movies. But for Cinemascope movies I have to zoom in, so the resolution gets lower. Which means that for Cinemascope movies you need higher resolution.

Finally, also consider that some people have worse and others have better vision than 20/20.

Conclusion: I definitely want 4K movies (but also 10bit, no chroma subsampling and a bigger gamut). FWIW, my viewing angle is near to the THX recommendation for 16:9 movies, but my viewing angle is noticeably bigger for Cinemascope movies.

[wanezhiling]

GK104 is too expensive for me..
Okay I'll buy a IVB 3770 to see what hd4000 happens.

[Andy o]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

You're already screwed.
There will always be manufacturers that try to save money on the wrong ends. Most TVs do processing in 4:2:2, which is still not ideal but for movie content the difference to full 4:4:4 is far less noticeable then your 4:2:0

But what I was saying is that as of now there's no commercial content in 4:2:2, isn't there?

[takenori]

a little bit of question,
whats the difference between decoding with quicksync and dxva (intel's clear video) within lav video?

[Mercury_22]

@Nev there is a (cosmetic ? ) problem with the splitter : while the splitter it's saying stereo LAVAudio it's saying 6 channels
Can you take a look ?

Sample

P.S. I'm using Revision: 43d6d997511f

[nevcairiel]

There is no problem, except with your file.
The MKV headers say its stereo (what the splitter shows), but the AC3 stream itself is 6 channel. Everything is working as intended.

[chros]

Originally Posted by wanezhiling

Well, Duckstakeoff@30fps@246M works well with "EVR + CUVID" not madVR, poor gt520 was totally killed by madVR..

Is this the QHD or the 1080p sample?
Where can I find it?