madVR - high quality video renderer (GPU assisted)

[cyberbeing]

A 3dlut is not really necessary for a Home User, since it's intended for a professional domain like movie industry and in those situations the difference might count.
I would go as far to say a 3dlut definitely is necessary for anybody with a wide gamut display. By default, wide gamut displays are massively over saturated (read: unsuitable) for use in sRGB, BT.601, and BT.709.

If you have a standard gamut display, using a 3dlut is somewhat optional, assuming your display covers BT.601 & BT.709 gamuts decently.

Blame the LCD industry for the strong push towards wide gamut for the home user which was an absolutely horrible idea, since except for professional sectors, our world operates in gamuts similar to sRGB. This means that color management (like using a 3dlut in madVR) is forced on any home user who wants their display to look normal under smaller gamut colorspaces like sRGB, BT.601, and BT.709.

Edit: Since your job is design related, you must already know this.

And let's take your example (http://www.projectorcentral.com/Samsung-SP-A800B.htm), so yeh, if you afford to buy a projector like that for personal use, this might be useful and the differences noticeable on the projected image. But, you can't compare that to a PC monitor.
Who's example are we talking about? Not mine. I use two standard gamut 21" GDM-F520 CRT PC monitors as the primary displays on my computer (though you could argue that they fall under the definition of professional monitors).

This past Christmas I also picked up a couple refub NEC 20WMGX2 (AS-IPS panel) for $140 each as gifts. The AS-IPS panel in that model is one of the better quality panels ever made and at that price it can't be beat.

Maybe on a Big Plasma/LCD or on a professional monitor (since you talked about color calibrations) this differences can be also noticed and easily distinguished with the naked eye. I'm not really a good example with a 19" monitor, yet is has a *VA panel, but even most with 24" don't seem to go with this category - unless they use a monitor with a decent panel (*VA, PVA, IPS), one that's usually expensive, for which color calibrations is a "must".
About seeing a difference, in many ways it is actually the opposite of what you state. You would likely notice the biggest difference on my most crappy monitor available, since it was probably doing nothing correct to begin with.

As you state though, if you are buying something like a cheap TN panel monitor, buying a color calibrator as well probably isn't worth it cost wise. Since even at $60 for something like a Pantone Huey colorimeter, for anybody who only spent $120 on their monitor, that would be a large chunk of change. In that example, the person might have even been better off just buying a $180 monitor instead.

It does go without that saying that a higher quality panel (preferably IPS, though PVA isn't bad either) should always calibrate better and produce a better picture overall. The further you get above $250 when buying a (non-TN panel) monitor, buying a color calibrator becomes a more and more economical and enticing option in terms of scale, even for the home user.

Edit 2: For anybody who's display manufacturer provides an ICC profile (which is pretty much all of them), assuming it is a matrix profile, you should be able to grab some canned primary values for your display which you can use for creating a custom 3dlut. The tags to look at (dump) are rXYZ (red primary), gXYZ (green primary), and bXYZ (blue primary). I wouldn't recommend using the wtpt (white point) value from a canned profile though.

[leeperry]

If you're talking about color calibration, mine was already calibrated with Spyder 3, yet that happened 2 years ago and might need a new calibration.
mastering studios get their monitoring CRT's recalibrated on a weekly basis...2 years has gone a long way, different refresh rate/driver revision are also prone to mess w/ your color calibration...it's a good guess your monitor is currently a far cry from D65/2.3 ;)
when I use madVR with reclock in MPC HC to play *.mkv movies, why does reclock say: no video stream detected?
DXVA? anyway, hide the filename or the white cat will bite :p
and it'd be better to give a full description of the MPC settings/filters on the Reclock forum...if you wanna have it troubleshot that is.

[Alante]

Who's example are we talking about? Not mine. I use two standard gamut 21" GDM-F520 CRT PC monitors as the primary displays on my computer (though you could argue that they fall under the definition of professional monitors).

On the contrary, this may be the LCD times, but a good CRT monitor can still compete with very expensive professional LCD's from EIZO. My biggest disappointment in the last year regarding monitors: SED's where canceled and I used to put my hope on those... Ok, we have OLED's now which as new technology are definitly not worth investing money in them (from my point of view) and maybe in 5 years they'll get to a normal/decent price but still...

Don't need to buy a calorimeter, since I won't used it very often yet I can barrow like the last time, might even do that to see if I can experience a visible enhancement with madVR, beyond the ones I get from calibrating my monitor.

mastering studios get their monitoring CRT's recalibrated on a weekly basis...2 years has gone a long way, different refresh rate/driver revision are also prone to mess w/ your color calibration...it's a good guess your monitor is currently a far cry from D65/2.3

It's an LCD, so there's no point in changing the refresh rate beyond or lower then 60 Hz, as for drivers - not really, as in not in a visible way.

[makakam]

leperryit's not dxva, I use haali media splitter, madVR, reclock and ac3 filter with MPC HC.

[cyberbeing]

My biggest disappointment in the last year regarding monitors: SED's where canceled and I used to put my hope on those...

I've always been a big fan of CRTs and was never fond of LCD displays, so when both SED and FED were effectively canceled I was also very disappointed....

I don't believe OLED is really a great replacement solution either. The differing decay times of the red, green, and in particular blue primaries (which is significantly shorter) is a massive problem for OLED which is in need of solving. As it stands now, the entire color balance of an OLED monitor will shift drastically the longer you use it. This is even more an issue because of the blue organic materials which can be used as the blue primary in OLEDs, the one which is closest to the sRGB/BT.709/AdobeRGB1998 blue primary has only a fraction of the lifespan of the blue organic materials which stray far away from the standard primaries.

[STaRGaZeR]

It's an LCD, so there's no point in changing the refresh rate beyond or lower then 60 Hz

Wrong. Just wrong.

[Mike5]

when I use madVR with reclock in MPC HC to play *.mkv movies, why does reclock say: no video stream detected?
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3531/reclu.th.jpg (http://img190.imageshack.us/i/reclu.jpg/)

Have you checked if you have two instances of Reclock or two instances of MPC-HC running at the same time ?

[makakam]

Mike5: I definitely don't have two instances running.. I can't figure it out..

[Alante]

Wrong. Just wrong.

Care to detail, or you just got an idea while looking at stars and now sit on it? :rolleyes: No, I'm not wrong - only have 2 x Refresh Rates on my LCD monitor: 60 Hz and 75 Hz, but 75 Hz gives no benefit, even makes things worst by adding more input lag. It's a known fact that most LCD monitors operate at 60 Hz for optimal performance and give no benefit beyond that. And yes, I know they released some models capable of 120 Hz (yet capable is not the correct word - since it can't be compared to the one from CRT's), but unfortunately comes with a 'TN panel' so I doubt your "this is Doom9. Lots of people here and in other forums have that kind of equipment" argument can stand on this part.

[Mike5]

Mike5: I definitely don't have two instances running.. I can't figure it out..

Ok, it was just an idea, because once I got this error for that reason.

[pirlouy]

@Alante: It looks like you don't know anything about smoothness, so that's why STaRGaZeR told you you were wrong.

I don't pretend to know this well, but I know one thing: in order not to have judder (or jitter ?), your display has to have a refresh rate which is a multiplier (or so) of video frame rate.

FYI, all recent TVs have 24 and 50Hz support, and it's often used. But I can understand you don't believe it, since you don't understand it (for now).

[mikelebron]

Disable 32 bit float as RC only accepts up to 32 bit integer... other then that setting WASPI as the default output works fine...

Keep in mind I am using all 32 bit direct show filters... are you using 64 bit?

Off-topic: How did you manage to use RC with WASAPI on Win 7 64 bit + X-FI XM? :confused:



Tried many things but didn't manage to get some sound from it.

PS.Nice Mod on your AT. :)

[STaRGaZeR]

Care to detail, or you just got an idea while looking at stars and now sit on it? :rolleyes: No, I'm not wrong - only have 2 x Refresh Rates on my LCD monitor: 60 Hz and 75 Hz, but 75 Hz gives no benefit, even makes things worst by adding more input lag. It's a known fact that most LCD monitors operate at 60 Hz for optimal performance and give no benefit beyond that. And yes, I know they released some models capable of 120 Hz (yet capable is not the correct word - since it can't be compared to the one from CRT's), but unfortunately comes with a 'TN panel' so I doubt your "this is Doom9. Lots of people here and in other forums have that kind of equipment" argument can stand on this part.

:rolleyes:

Look, I have four selectable options: 60, 100, 110 and 120. Ever heard of PowerStrip BTW?

As said, you don't understand a thing about smoothness and other things. Gives no benefit for what? Optimal perfomance? Do you know how the screen is "refreshed" in LCD vs CRT? Capable monitors? Do you know why we need a refresh rate that is equal or a multiple of the original material FPS? Do you know, or at least have seen, the implications of 60 more images per second in games or the judder free playback of 24, 30 and 60 FPS material when using a true 120Hz monitor? Give me a break.

Seriously, do some research and buy some stuff before you call everything except what you have or consider good useless. We are not genius, but don't think that because you have a crappy 19" monitor with input lag at 75Hz gives you some kind of authority or knowledge to come here and spread all that BS...

[Alante]

Disable 32 bit float as RC only accepts up to 32 bit integer... other then that setting WASPI as the default output works fine...

Keep in mind I am using all 32 bit direct show filters... are you using 64 bit?

No, all 32 bit filters, since i use KMPlayer and tried even 32 or lower but still - No sound. :confused:



As said, you don't understand a thing about smoothness and other things. Gives no benefit for what? Optimal perfomance? Do you know how the screen is "refreshed" in LCD vs CRT? Capable monitors? Do you know why we need a refresh rate that is equal or a multiple of the original material FPS? Do you know, or at least have seen, the implications of 60 more images per second in games or the judder free playback of 24, 30 and 60 FPS material when using a true 120Hz monitor? Give me a break.


I sure do and more then sure that you don't. Forcing 120 Hz on 60 Hz capable LCD will increase the input lag considerably and may also flicker the image. That's why you have to active VSync for some games or limit their FPS at 60, or you could play it at 100 FPS like this... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3i9gKaSCZk)

As for 60+ FPS in a game, funny one... you talk as if you're among the few that had that privilege... as if CRT monitors never existed. Guess you're really young to conclude that, but on my younger days CRT's were a STANDARD and most of us had CRT's capable of 85 Hz - 120 Hz. Even now, you might see some at some poor families (since SH CRT's are still the cheapest option), or at some people that couldn't let go a good technology, that got replaced by one that offer more ergonomics and less potential. Ask an older friend, a parent if you think I'm lying.

Seriously, do some research and buy some stuff before you call everything except what you have or consider good useless. We are not genius, but don't think that because you have a crappy 19" monitor with input lag at 75Hz gives you some kind of authority or knowledge to come here and spread all that BS...

What?! :confused: Where did i say that everything except what i have, or consider good is useless? It's true I had some subjective opinions, but I admitted that... and my LCD is not crappy, when I got it was a very good LCD. Could have gotten 2 x 22 LCD's with TN panel at what I paid for it and now those are crappy (i.m.h.o.). Don't care about their 2 ms on Gray to Gray, a TN and his viewing angles can sure give a crappy experience, for my tastes.

And it's not bullshit, learn how most LCD work:

If you have an LCD monitor, you may not be able to adjust the refresh rate. This is because most LCD monitors come with a standard refresh rate that is well above the "flicker" point. LCD monitors produce less flicker than CRT monitors because the pixels on an LCD screen stay lit longer than CRT monitors before they noticeably fade.

The pixels in a standard colour LCD screen are activated directly by signals from the video card. That is to say that they are not activated serially by electron guns, as is the case with a CRT monitor. Moreover, they do not fade out if they are not reactivated regularly. Each pixel has its own connection to the video card. The pixels are turned on by signals from the video card, and stay on until other signals arrive which make them turn off or change their state. Because if this, many LCD's can have a default refresh rate set as low as 60Hz yet still do not appear to flicker. (A CRT monitor set to use a low refresh rate of 60Hz would flicker noticeably.)

Source... (http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/Monitor.htm)

As for the models that can operate at 120 Hz, they're very few in number, recently released and use a TN panel (if i remember correctly). (http://www.google.ro/#hl=ro&source=hp&q=120hz+lcd+monitor&btnG=C%C4%83utare+Google&meta=&aq=0s&oq=120+hz+lcd+m&fp=eda4f78edcaadb51) You didn't even bother to look/inform-yourself and confront me with a vague and insulting answer.

My last job was design/marketing related (IT domain) but I also worked as an IT technician, so yeah I have my share of knowledge regarding this subject. I know how they're made, how they work and even know how to bullshit (marketing tricks) uninformed people with details regarding Dynamic Contrast, response time (2 ms grey to grey), but ignore to mention important details like the viewing angles and the panel of a specific LCD.

[pirlouy]

@Alante: sorry to interfere in your discussion with STaRGaZeR, but I feel obliged to support him. You can think 60Hz is the best refresh screen (that's why I thought at first), you're just wrong and you don't know it yet.
But as I don't want to hijack this thread, I let you read this thread, or rather this one (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=148221) dedicated to smoothness...

[nurbs]

Since STaRGaZeR can switch between 100 and 120 Hz he can play back 25 FPS and 24 FPS content without any judder. I guess it works well for 24000/1001 FPS as well. I guess 600 Hz would be ideal because it divisible without remainder by 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 and thereby covers all commonly used framerates. This isn't that important with games where you generally have framerates north of 30 FPS anyway, but with videos where you're generally stuck with 24 or 25 FPS having a multiple is very important for smooth playback.
Personally I'd switch from my 60 Hz LCD to a 120 Hz without hesitation if someone offered me a halfway decent unit. It's just not in my budget right now.

[Alante]

@Alante: sorry to interfere in your discussion with STaRGaZeR, but I feel obliged to support him. You can think 60Hz is the best refresh screen (that's why I thought at first), you're just wrong and you don't know it yet.
But as I don't want to hijack this thread, I let you read this thread, or rather this one (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=148221) dedicated to smoothness...

I know my English needs some improving (since it's not my native language) but I'm definitely not the only one with this problem. I NEVER SAID 60 Hz is the best refresh screen... what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that.

The refresh rate is one the main reasons, why some people still keep their CRT's, fallowed by viewing angles, contrast and color reproduction. So I know refresh rate is important, especially for 3D but honestly I doubt most of you (even if this doom9 or other video forums/shacks) already have this monitor (http://www.tweaktown.com/news/13715/nvidia_gears_up_for_3d_blu_ray_nice_and_early/) which was barley announced in December 2009. The other two (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Requirements.html) were available earlier of 2009 but they use a crappy TN panel.

[STaRGaZeR]

snip

Listen. There are several points in your posts that are so wrong in the concept that the correct and detailed explanation would need a very long post, and I'm not going to write that. Use Google if you want. Just some random corrections.

About the "flicker point" that article talks about. LCD will not flicker. Ever. The only possible flickering in LCD comes from the backlight, if the monitor has some crappy CCFLs or LEDs in there. Do not confuse screen flickering with backlight flickering or flickering caused by low FPS material.

I'd be amazed if you could force 120Hz in a 60Hz monitor. Really amazed. Mostly because you won't be able to do that.

About games, yes, I have (and had) that privilege. I've had 120Hz CRTs and LCDs. Talking about age is a bad habit, because I'm probably older than you.

I have a true 120Hz monitor, a 2233RZ. I've had it for 6 or more months. It's indeed a crappy TN panel, but that's the price you have to pay for 120Hz right now. Please don't tell me what this monitor can and can't do. I know it first hand. That Acer is also TN.

I have to insist: stop spreading BS.

@nurbs

The refresh rate is almost exactly 120Hz. 24000/1001, 30000/1001, etc. material is almost perfect, each 8,333s a frame is repeated 6 times instead of 5 (considering 24000/1001). It's very hard to notice it but it's there. I'd need 119,88Hz, something Windows or ATI don't offer right now. PowerStrip does the trick though, then you have indeed 100% judder free playback.

[mikelebron]

Im using MPC-HC... try a different player and decoder..

No, all 32 bit filters, since i use KMPlayer and tried even 32 or lower but still - No sound. :confused:

[madshi]

And it's not bullshit, learn how most LCD work:

This is because most LCD monitors come with a standard refresh rate that is well above the "flicker" point. LCD monitors produce less flicker than CRT monitors because the pixels on an LCD screen stay lit longer than CRT monitors before they noticeably fade.
What a great article. These two sentences alone contain 3 false informations!! :rolleyes:

(1) 60Hz is not "well above the flicker point".
(2) LCD monitors don't produce "less flicker", they don't produce any flicker at all, regardless of which refresh rate is used.
(3) Pixels on an LCD screen don't "stay lit longer", they stay lit all the time, with no decrease in brightness whatsoever.

Summed up, all LCD monitors (except some rare new ones with blinking/scanning backlights) are sample-and-hold type displays. You could use 10Hz refresh rate and there would still be zero flicker.

@Alante, if you quote an article to proof your point, you should choose an article which is technically accurate... ;)

The sense of changing the refresh rate for video playback has nothing to do with flicker, but with perceived motion smoothness. If you watch 24fps content with 60Hz refresh rate (doesn't matter if it's LCD or CRT), there will be some motion judder, due to the 3:2 pulldown. If your display supports a refresh rate which is a straight multiplier of the source frame rate, that is the preferred video playback setup cause that way you can avoid the 3:2 pulldown and get 100% smooth playback.

If you play back an NTSC 24fps* source, ideal refresh rates would be 24Hz*, 48Hz*, 72Hz*, 96Hz*, 120Hz*. If you play back a PAL source, ideal refresh rates would be 25Hz, 50Hz, 75Hz, 100Hz. If you can force your display to use those refresh rates, you'll get smoother motion.

Input lag does not matter for video playback, since you can easily adjust audio delay. Video playback is not like gaming. For gaming input lag is important, for video playback it's not.

Can we close the refresh rate discussion now?

*) NTSC uses a 1.001 divisor, so it's not really 24.000, but 24.000/1.001 = 23.976 etc...

[Andy o]

Stargazer, that monitor is the one compatible with Nvidia's 3D stuff, right? Does it also do 100 Hz? How does an LCD change refresh rates, the pixels just get updated faster/slower? I was under the impression that LCDs only had one fixed rate (120 Hz in your case). What it could take in, that's a different thing than the actual refresh rate of the screen.

[Alante]

Listen. There are several points in your posts that are so wrong in the concept that the correct and detailed explanation would need a very long post, and I'm not going to write that. Use Google if you want. Just some random corrections.

About the "flicker point" that article talks about. LCD will not flicker. Ever. The only possible flickering in LCD comes from the backlight, if the monitor has some crappy CCFLs or LEDs in there. Do not confuse screen flickering with backlight flickering or flickering caused by low FPS material.

I'd be amazed if you could force 120Hz in a 60Hz monitor. Really amazed. Mostly because you won't be able to do that.

About games, yes, I have (and had) that privilege. I've had 120Hz CRTs and LCDs. Talking about age is a bad habit, because I'm probably older than you.

I have a true 120Hz monitor, a 2233RZ. I've had it for 6 or more months. It's indeed a crappy TN panel, but that's the price you have to pay for 120Hz right now. Please don't tell me what this monitor can and can't do. I know it first hand. That Acer is also TN.



First of all, you own a monitor with TN panel and lecture me about quality. No thanx, I'd rather have a monitor with a good panel and decent viewing angles... oh yeah, and that Acer is in same situation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAxjaLqYSus), my bad...


@Alante, if you quote an article to proof your point, you should choose an article which is technically accurate...

I would have explain this with my own words, but English is not my native language. Take the above example, when I say you shouldn't enforce 120 Hz on LCD's with a standard 60 Hz and "pirlouy" understand, that I think 60 Hz monitors are best. That's why I used an article which seemed ok, unless you get specific with every detail. The correct word would be "Tearing effect" (http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html) not "Flicker"...i was referring to tearing when I said this:

I NEVER SAID 60 Hz is the best refresh screen... what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that.

It is an unfortunate fact of computer graphics that if you disable VSync, your graphics card and monitor will go out of synch. Whenever your FPS exceeds the refresh rate (e.g. 120 FPS on a 60Hz screen), or in general at any point during which your graphics card is working faster than your monitor, the graphics card produces more frames in the frame buffer than the monitor can actually display at any one time, so the end result is that when the monitor goes to get a new frame from the primary buffer of the graphics card during VBI, the frame may be made up of two or more different frames overlapping each other. This results in the onscreen image appearing to be slightly out of alignment or 'torn' in parts whenever there is any movement - and thus it is referred to as Tearing. An example of this is provided in the simulated screenshot below. Look closely at the urinals and the sink - portions of them are out of alignment due to tearing:

http://www.tweakguides.com/images/GGDSG_19.jpg

Can we close the refresh rate discussion now?

Yeh, sorry for OT, madVR - high quality video renderer - when you put it like that and try it in practice, the discussion derived from this subject leads to other familiar aspects like Color Calibration/LUT profiles and now refresh rate. :)

[STaRGaZeR]

Stargazer, that monitor is the one compatible with Nvidia's 3D stuff, right? Does it also do 100 Hz? How does an LCD change refresh rates, the pixels just get updated faster/slower? I was under the impression that LCDs only had one fixed rate (120 Hz in your case). What it could take in, that's a different thing than the actual refresh rate of the screen.

Yes and yes. Windows will let you choose 60, 100, 110 or 120Hz in the typical refresh rate selection list. Any monitor with true 100Hz or 120Hz support (not like those HDTVs that take 50/60Hz signals and insert interpolated frames to get 100/120Hz) will be compatible with 3D, with 60 and 50FPS per eye per second respectively.

When you're at xHz refresh rate the pixels can be updated x times per second. The ability to change or accept certain refresh rates depends of the monitor. When set to those xHz, the monitor and the graphics card will be locked at those xHz. It's the graphics card and/or the applications used responsability to adapt other contents to that rate, since that's the only one that's going to be sent to the monitor. That's why you have sync algorithms in all renderers, to adapt any source to the monitors' refresh rate, repeating or skipping frames to maintain sync with audio. Some of them can change the pixel clock, effectively changing the refresh rate to adapt the monitor to the video instead of the video to the monitor.

First of all, you own a monitor with TN panel and lecture me about quality. No thanx, I'd rather have a monitor with a good panel and decent viewing angles... oh yeah, and that Acer is in same situation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAxjaLqYSus), my bad...

:rolleyes: Good job finding a way to attack me instead of the argument. But yes, I can do that because that's only one of my monitors. I know how good PVA and IPS panels look like ;)

So now it's about tearing. Yeah right. I'd lecture you about the experience of playing with constant, vsync'ed 120FPS in a 120Hz monitor vs 60FPS in a 60Hz monitor, but I won't do that because that's completely off-topic and this is a video related forum. Also you'll probably start talking about not related things like input lag, ghosting, etc.

Summing it up without going off-topic: you said "It's an LCD, so there's no point in changing the refresh rate beyond or lower then 60 Hz". That's just wrong, as me and others have told you.

[madshi]

That's why I used an article which seemed ok
It's not ok, unfortunately. It's a bad and incorrect article.

what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid
If you want to play PAL video, which is natively 50Hz, forcing your LCD display to 100Hz (if it supports this refresh rate) is actually not wrong/stupid, but it's right/clever, because playing PAL video with 60Hz results in bad motion judder, while playing PAL video with 100Hz results in smooth motion. So what you're saying is very wrong for PAL video playback.

It is an unfortunate fact of computer graphics that if you disable VSync [...]
All video renderers (try to) enforce VSync internally. So that whole TweakGuides article you quoted is totally useless when talking about video playback.

Look, you come here with all that game related information (disabling VSync, input lag). You need to understand that video playback is very different to game rendering. Nobody disables VSync for video playback, and input lag doesn't matter for video playback, either. What does matter for video playback, is that you try to match the display's refresh rate to the source frame rate. And that's a concept which you don't seem to understand. This concept is only needed for video playback, not for games. So if you want to learn how to do video playback properly, first throw away all your games "knowledge" and then listen to people who have actual experience with optimizing video playback quality. It's a different world, and it follows different rules...

[leeperry]

talking about games, I can't quite believe how stuttery games in MAME are(yes I use a matching refresh rate)...I wish they'd make a Reclock/Trimension edition, maybe some day :D

[Alante]

Y

:rolleyes: Good job finding a way to attack me instead of the argument. But yes, I can do that because that's only one of my monitors. I know how good PVA and IPS panels look like ;)

So now it's about tearing. Yeah right. I'd lecture you about the experience of playing with constant, vsync'ed 120FPS in a 120Hz monitor vs 60FPS in a 60Hz monitor, but I won't do that because that's completely off-topic and this is a video related forum. Also you'll probably start talking about not related things like input lag, ghosting, etc.

Nice one, if I consider TN panels a crappy choice, that means I'm attacking you... sure...:rolleyes: TN panel will always be the among the worst solutions as far as I'm concern.

I rarely play FPS games now, so don't really care... and when I did i had a CRT monitor. For the 3'rd time, I DIDN'T SAY 60 HZ is THE BEST OPTION, what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that.


I seriously doubt many people from here have a monitor like yours. And it's not cause they can't afford it since is not really expensive, but because it has a TN panel. This being said regarding LCD monitors - not HDTV/Projectors.

If you want to play PAL video, which is natively 50Hz, forcing your LCD display to 100Hz (if it supports this refresh rate) is actually not wrong/stupid, but it's right/clever, because playing PAL video with 60Hz results in bad motion judder, while playing PAL video with 100Hz results in smooth motion. So what you're saying is very wrong for PAL video playback.

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEEP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN as if MOST LCD's that where made until now have a standard of 100 HZ. MY EXACT QUOTE:

I NEVER SAID 60 Hz is the best refresh screen... what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that.

How many LCD Monitors are there, capable of 100 HZ - 120 HZ???? :mad: 4 - most released last year, even in December. If I'd make a pool about owners of LCD monitors, I seriously doubt 90% of doom9 forum will say they own those crappy TN panels based LCD.

My videos (the once encoded correctly) play smooth, don't have any problem there what so ever. I had a bad presumption regarding your video render, presuming it could render old/badly encoded videos with a better pixel fusion, based on the demonstration from the 1'st page, but in practice that personal theory was absent. For TV content, I have a TV and also have a console, don't use my PC for that. Of course, this are personal preferences, since I talk about what I do, can't be objective with my preferences saying that most do the same (also repeated this several times). As for being objective regarding LCD monitors, it's proven fact that most LCD monitor operate at 60 Hz, since LCD monitors weren't launched in 2009, only few with TN panel at 120 Hz where launched then and only few could have those as well (pretty logical).

[STaRGaZeR]

I seriously doubt many people from here have a monitor like yours.

How many LCD Monitors are there, capable of 100 HZ - 120 HZ???? :mad: 4 - most released last year, even in December. If I'd make a pool about owners of LCD monitors, I seriously doubt 90% of doom9 forum will say they own those crappy TN panels based LCD.

I'm still trying to understand why and if this is relevant to the discussion...

My videos (the once encoded correctly) play smooth, don't have any problem there what so ever. I had a bad presumption regarding your video render, presuming it could render old/badly encoded videos with a better pixel fusion, based on the demonstration from the 1'st page, but in practice that personal theory was absent.

Badly encoded videos, better pixel fusion... OMG. Go read some wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling)kid, paying special attention to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:2:0), because 99% if not all videos you can get use it.

[madshi]

For the 3'rd time
You can repeat your misinformation 100 times, it won't change the fact that it's wrong.

How many LCD Monitors are there, capable of 100 HZ - 120 HZ????
The general rule in video playback is to match source frame rate and display refresh rate. That doesn't mean that 100Hz or 120Hz are needed. As I said before, for NTSC video 24Hz would do just fine, or 48Hz or 72Hz. Or for PAL e.g. 50Hz or 75Hz. If a given display supports 100Hz or 120Hz, those are good choices, too. On the other hand, 60Hz is *not* a good choice for movie watching.

And btw, who told you that watching movies on a computer monitor would be a good idea? For movie watching you should use a display which is capable of using refresh rates that match the usual movie frame rates.

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEEP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN
Because "we people" were naive enough to hope that you would be able to learn. But since it seems that our hope was wrong, I'd appreciate if you could stop posting in "my" thread, because honestly you've posted enough misinformation in the last few pages. Thanks.

[Alante]

You can repeat your misinformation 100 times, it won't change the fact that it's wrong.


The general rule in video playback is to match source frame rate and display refresh rate. That doesn't mean that 100Hz or 120Hz are needed. As I said before, for NTSC video 24Hz would do just fine, or 48Hz or 72Hz. Or for PAL e.g. 50Hz or 75Hz. If a given display supports 100Hz or 120Hz, those are good choices, too. On the other hand, 60Hz is *not* a good choice for movie watching.

And btw, who told you that watching movies on a computer monitor would be a good idea? For movie watching you should use a display which is capable of using refresh rates that match the usual movie frame rates.


Because "we people" were naive enough to hope that you would be able to learn. But since it seems that our hope was wrong, I'd appreciate if you could stop posting in "my" thread, because honestly you've posted enough misinformation in the last few pages. Thanks.

That discussion, on which you barged in wasn't even meant for you. So by saying is wrong - this means that you think is correct to advise people with 60 Hz capable monitors, to force 120 Hz on them. That's what I repeated 3 times now, yet even now you correct me as the troll above, saying is wrong which means that the opposite (forcing 120 Hz on a monitor with 60 Hz standard value) is right by you opinion. You can't say you didn't understand, cause this was repeated many times, so from my point of view, you're on same page with STaRGaZeR. I see you even agreed with his 120 Hz monitor, ignoring the fact that it's a TN panel, which again you value more, just cause it's capable of 120 Hz, ignoring TN crappy potential.

And btw, who told you that watching movies on a computer monitor would be a good idea? For movie watching you should use a display which is capable of using refresh rates that match the usual movie frame rates.

Movies is one thing, usual videos is another but the above discussion was Monitor related. That's why STaRGaZeR mentioned about a 120 Hz monitor. As mention above, I don't use my PC as source for watching movies on TV and only used your Rendering with KMPlayer for usual video clips and was expecting to have some potential in this direction:

I had a bad presumption regarding your video render, presuming it could render old/badly encoded videos with a better pixel fusion, based on the demonstration from the 1'st page, but in practice that personal theory was absent.

[madshi]

That discussion, on which you barged in wasn't even meant for you. So by saying is wrong - this means that you think is correct to advise people with 60 Hz capable monitors, to force 120 Hz on them.
If the display supports it, *YES*, any clean multiply of 24Hz (including 120Hz) is better than 60Hz for movies. Maybe this math is too complicated for you?

NTSC movie frame rate = 24fps

24Hz/24fps = 1.0 = smooth motion
48Hz/24fps = 2.0 = smooth motion
72Hz/24fps = 3.0 = smooth motion
96Hz/24fps = 4.0 = smooth motion
120Hz/24fps = 5.0 = smooth motion

60Hz/24fps = 2.5 = motion judder

This is my last post on this topic.

[Alante]

If the display supports it, *YES*, any clean multiply of 24Hz (including 120Hz) is better than 60Hz for movies. Maybe this math is too complicated for you?

NTSC movie frame rate = 24fps

24Hz/24fps = 1.0 = smooth motion
48Hz/24fps = 2.0 = smooth motion
72Hz/24fps = 3.0 = smooth motion
96Hz/24fps = 4.0 = smooth motion
120Hz/24fps = 5.0 = smooth motion

60Hz/24fps = 2.5 = motion judder

This is my last post on this topic.

Yeh man, but I was really specific every time i repeated myself, that i was referring only to those that don't support 120 Hz, the ones with a 60 Hz standard, since most LCD monitors 99% are in that position. And he, then you keep contradicted me, saying I'm wrong as if you agree with 120 Hz forced on on 60 Hz capable monitors. Regarding other specifications I've been subjective and admitted that, but in this situation I've been objective since I knew that the monitors with 120 Hz are new (2009) and have a crappy TN panel, which can be neglected if you're aiming for quality.

I have some video-clips at 25/50 FPS yet no motion judder :(... Some might say this is related to "pulldown detection" yet with some driver versions used to get Flicker with PowerDVD. So far, I've only seen some motion judder on some badly encoded videos that didn't run at constant FPS (keep jumping between 24.9 - 25.2 - 27.2 - 29.8) but in that case, even the quality was poor and didn't really matter, since they weren't meant for keeping. Maybe I was lucky, yet from time to time, even I have some obsession with perfection, which luckily fades with time and in most cases I realize it was just the placebo effect. :)

PS.I'm harder to impress, usually by visible differences, since I had my share of disappointments... but don't mind me, since I've seen a lot of people, even some that I respect for their work, that appreciate madVR (Madshi's video render), which means you did something right with this project and maybe even I could noticed it with some proper tools which I don't have at the moment. What I'm saying or trying - keep up the good work for those that appreciate it and of course for yourself, don't get demoralized by some meaningless talk. Most great ideas, for many projects where just that - ideas, you don't have to have omniscience, not even for a single domain to make a good thing... ;)

[leeperry]

Maybe I was lucky
my fav is this article: http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

the guy explains that 24p is evil, and that 60Hz is so much better...he also doesn't realize that most pj's will run 24p at 48Hz(Mitsubishi)/96Hz(Planar) or 240Hz(VPL-VW Sony serie w/ that MotionPlus thingie).

pretty much all you could think wrong has been put in this article, needless to say it has rendered pjcentral.com laughable to me.
Scenes like this do not look great in 60p, but they look worse in 24p. After all the hype over 24p (the benefits of which we eagerly anticipated as much as anyone), it must be admitted that 60p playback can, in the final analysis, be less distracting for many people.
When you play it back in 60p, the juddering effect in the background is still there, but it is reduced--it is easier to live with.
and then he says that movies should be shot in 60fps, hah..fail again.

48fps, maybe? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1
I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 4K/24 frames per second.

[Alante]

my fav is this article: http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

the guy explains that 24p is evil, and that 60Hz is so much better...he also doesn't realize that most pj's will run 24p at 48Hz(Mitsubishi)/96Hz(Planar) or 240Hz(VPL-VW Sony serie w/ that MotionPlus thingie).

pretty much all you could think wrong has been put in this article, needless to say it has rendered pjcentral.com laughable to me.


and then he says that movies should be shot in 60fps, hah..fail again.

48fps, maybe? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1043&cs=1

Those guys talk about projectors and cinema material :( . Sorry but I personally have poor experience with that, most from watching movies in cinema, non from my own practice - which is a usually guidance for my opinions. Don't really like to theorize about products that are out of my reach and can't prove to my self, that they can act as described. maybe that's why I never joined http://www.ferrarilife.com/forums/ :).

[leeperry]

it's the exact same thing...24fps source > display.

but well, to be perfectly honest, no standalone player either Kazuya or I have seen has ever been as smooth as Reclock...so if you had to choose between juddery 60Hz and hiccuping 23.976fps>24Hz, 60Hz might win indeed ;)

a HTPC cannot be beaten as A/V entertainment platform.

[flanger216]

I don't use my PC as source for watching movies

This is the most unsurprising statement I've ever read.

[Andy o]

Not to pile on Alante, but I still don't get what he means by forcing 120Hz to a non-120Hz capable display. Most 120 Hz TVs can't even take a 120 Hz input willy-nilly, let alone 60 Hz LCD. You should have to hack the EDID and even if your graphics card's control panel is showing you can output 120 Hz, either you'll get nothing or you get some garbled crap, and maybe even screw up your screen.

[STaRGaZeR]

Don't feed the troll.

[Alante]

Not to pile on Alante, but I still don't get what he means by forcing 120Hz to a non-120Hz capable display. Most 120 Hz TVs can't even take a 120 Hz input willy-nilly, let alone 60 Hz LCD. You should have to hack the EDID and even if your graphics card's control panel is showing you can output 120 Hz, either you'll get nothing or you get some garbled crap, and maybe even screw up your screen.

By default, you have specific standard Rates like 60 Hz / 75 Hz which are the recommended frequencies for most LCD Monitors at their native resolution. This settings should be stable, synchronized with the A/D converter. I personally never tried other values, yet you can force custom values with PowerStrip (as STaRGaZeR mentioned). But I wouldn't recommended that, since there's a big chance for some technical problems, maybe not at lower refresh rates but beyond 75 Hz, the monitor A/D converter could work incorrectly with the user defined values, might even damage your LCD. Since he offered that solution, I keep repeating myself you shouldn't try it, wile STaRGaZeR said I was wrong - as if he recommended you to do just that. Even madshi agreed with him and honestly, that really surprised me (but not in a positive way)...

[nurbs]

To summarize how this all got started:
It's an LCD, so there's no point in changing the refresh rate beyond or lower then 60 Hz.
Wrong. Just wrong.
No, I'm not wrong - only have 2 x Refresh Rates on my LCD monitor: 60 Hz and 75 Hz, but 75 Hz gives no benefit, even makes things worst by adding more input lag.

What you said was simply wrong. Since your display supports 75 Hz there is a good reason to use that refresh rate if you watch media with 25 FPS (i.e. PAL) and that is to get more fluid motion. The problems you mention may be problems when you play games, but they don't have any negative impact when you watch movies. Since it can do those two refresh rates it probably can also do ~72 Hz which is good for 24000/1001 FPS content which is probably the majority of the content available these days and is present on NTSC DVDs and most Blu-Rays around the world. Nobody suggested trying to force a display that only supports 60 Hz to a rate of 120 Hz mainly because that's impossible. People just disagreed with the blanket statement you started with, that anything other than 60 Hz is useless.

Maybe it's because English isn't everyones first language here on the board, it certainly isn't my first language, but what you said is that if you have a display that can do 60 Hz and 120 Hz you should definitely run it at 60 Hz. The word capable doesn't in itself exclude other possibilities, especially if you use it in response to a person telling you that his monitor supports 120 Hz out of the box.
Forcing 120 Hz on 60 Hz capable LCD will increase the input lag considerably and may also flicker the image.

[leeperry]

I don't really understand all the fuss about LCD, they're very nice for a secretary in an office(low power comsumption, flat, non-flickering)...but their native contrast blows, who needs light gray blacks exactly? you can throw 120/240Hz at them if you like, but their native CR still won't exceed 600:1 or so.

sure, some of them use the backlight in a dynamic way to artifically increase the CR(like a dynamic iris on a pj), but it will be very visible in extreme scenes...LCD is so pointless to begin w/ :D

[Alante]

To summarize how this all got started:
What you said was simply wrong. Since your display supports 75 Hz there is a good reason to use that refresh rate if you watch media with 25 FPS (i.e. PAL) and that is to get more fluid motion. The problems you mention may be problems when you play games, but they don't have any negative impact when you watch movies. Since it can do those two refresh rates it probably can also do ~72 Hz which is good for 24000/1001 FPS content which is probably the majority of the content available these days and is present on NTSC DVDs and most Blu-Rays around the world. Nobody suggested trying to force a display that only supports 60 Hz to a rate of 120 Hz mainly because that's impossible. People just disagreed with the blanket statement you started with, that anything other than 60 Hz is useless.

Maybe it's because English isn't everyones first language here on the board, it certainly isn't my first language, but what you said is that if you have a display that can do 60 Hz and 120 Hz you should definitely run it at 60 Hz. The word capable doesn't in itself exclude other possibilities, especially if you use it in response to a person telling you that his monitor supports 120 Hz out of the box.

I think I know better then you at what I was referring, and even repeated that several times and get contradicted every time:

(post 1960)

It's a known fact that most LCD monitors operate at 60 Hz for optimal performance and give no benefit beyond that. And yes, I know they released some models capable of 120 Hz (yet capable is not the correct word - since it can't be compared to the one from CRT's), but unfortunately comes with a 'TN panel' so I doubt your "this is Doom9. Lots of people here and in other forums have that kind of equipment" argument can stand on this part.

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1364373&postcount=1975 (post 1975)

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1364383&postcount=1977 (post 1977)

For the 3'rd time, I DIDN'T SAY 60 HZ is THE BEST OPTION, what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that.


I seriously doubt many people from here have a monitor like yours. And it's not cause they can't afford it since is not really expensive, but because it has a TN panel. This being said regarding LCD monitors - not HDTV/Projectors.


WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEEP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN as if MOST LCD's that where made until now have a standard of 100 HZ.


How many LCD Monitors are there, capable of 100 HZ - 120 HZ???? :mad: 4 - most released last year, even in December. If I'd make a pool about owners of LCD monitors, I seriously doubt 90% of doom9 forum will say they own those crappy TN panels based LCD.


I was never specific, like the lie you put in my mouth about having an LCD with 60 Hz and 120 Hz and using it at 60 HZ... :mad: More like detailed as seen in above quote, since 120 Hz monitors represent 1% of all monitors on market (available since 2009) and even those use a crappy TN panel. But I do admit, the next quote could be my mistake, since it's gaming related:

No, I'm not wrong - only have 2 x Refresh Rates on my LCD monitor: 60 Hz and 75 Hz, but 75 Hz gives no benefit, even makes things worst by adding more input lag.

And really wasn't aware it can help with videos, since I don't have any problems with "motion judder" by rendering a 25 FPS Video at 60 Hz. Just tried it out of curiosity lately with a video at 25 FPS with RR at 75 Hz and plays exactly the same, definitely not smother in any way, so...

sure, some of them use the backlight in a dynamic way to artifically increase the CR(like a dynamic iris on a pj), but it will be very visible in extreme scenes...LCD is so pointless to begin w/

If you're referring to Dynamic Contrast, that's just a marketing scam, use to put in on banners - a number like 20000:1, it's spotting for average users, and they cover 90% of clients. :)

[STaRGaZeR]

I don't really understand all the fuss about LCD, they're very nice for a secretary in an office(low power comsumption, flat, non-flickering)...but their native contrast blows, who needs light gray blacks exactly? you can throw 120/240Hz at them if you like, but their native CR still won't exceed 600:1 or so.

sure, some of them use the backlight in a dynamic way to artifically increase the CR(like a dynamic iris on a pj), but it will be very visible in extreme scenes...LCD is so pointless to begin w/ :D

Plasma flickers, for proyectors you need lots of space and they lack resolution... it's a matter of preference. Have you seen RGB LED with local dimming LCDs? If not you should ;)

[Andy o]

By default, you have specific standard Rates like 60 Hz / 75 Hz which are the recommended frequencies for most LCD Monitors at their native resolution. This settings should be stable, synchronized with the A/D converter. I personally never tried other values, yet you can force custom values with PowerStrip (as STaRGaZeR mentioned). But I wouldn't recommended that, since there's a big chance for some technical problems, maybe not at lower refresh rates but beyond 75 Hz, the monitor A/D converter could work incorrectly with the user defined values, might even damage your LCD. Since he offered that solution, I keep repeating myself you shouldn't try it, wile STaRGaZeR said I was wrong - as if he recommended you to do just that. Even madshi agreed with him and honestly, that really surprised me (but not in a positive way)...

So you were talking about forcing higher frequencies than what the monitor can take with PowerStrip, and you're right about that. But they were talking about 120Hz-capable monitors and their use for watching movies, as far as I can tell. I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

[nurbs]

I think I know better then you at what I was referring, and even repeated that several times and get contradicted every time:
(post 1960)
Maybe you meant something different, but it's not there in writing. Capable of 60 Hz means it can do 60 Hz. It doesn't mean that it can't do 75, 100, 120 or whatever. You not being able to properly phrase what you want to say is not me putting lies in you mouth. Apparently no one here understood what you really meant, else they wouldn't have tried to correct you. Anyway this is pointless, I'm out.

[leeperry]

Plasma flickers, for proyectors you need lots of space and they lack resolution... it's a matter of preference. Have you seen RGB LED with local dimming LCDs? If not you should ;)
wait for laser DLP, this will be the pinnacle of video entertainment..even in HDTV's, not just projectors(and no more RBE :devil:)

laser DLP - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=laser+DLP&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

the dead pixel/mura effects and so of LCD is a big no-no for me...CRT and DLP do everything LCD does, just better :cool:

the CR is unlimited on a CRT and the native contrast of a DarkChip4 can reach +4000:1, no way I will ever watch videos on a 600:1 CR display...anyway we've gone terribly OT I'm afraid, that's gonna make madshi a sad panda to have so much thread crapping on his private property :p

[Alante]

So you were talking about forcing higher frequencies than what the monitor can take with PowerStrip, and you're right about that. But they were talking about 120Hz-capable monitors and their use for watching movies, as far as I can tell. I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

Kinda.. :) But those so called capable monitors where released for sell last year and they use a TN panel (that's why I said "so called"). I can't imagine lots of people owning those, or even rushing to get them cause of their crappy panel. Maybe only some gamers, the ones that missed 100 FPS in Counterstrike. :)

For those that don't know the difference between a TN panel and other panels (*VA, S-PVA, IPS , S-IPS, etc) and or confused about why do I think/say their crappy, here are 2 x comparisons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP7C00BIzH8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SjS6VCVAcA

The only monitors that can run at 120 Hz released until now have a TN panel (as far as I know - maybe they just released one 10 minutes ago or simply didn't catch that news). :)


the CR is unlimited on a CRT and the native contrast of a DarkChip4 can reach +4000:1, no way I will ever watch videos on a 600:1 CR display...anyway we've gone terribly OT I'm afraid, that's gonna make madshi a sad panda to have so much thread crapping on his private property

Well, as you, are somebody else said, you do need a good source for seeing some kinda difference between other renders and his, so maybe some of this OT information could point the ones interested in the right direction. :) If not, few post later others might ask if there really is some difference, or is just placebo effect.

[leeperry]

Well, as you, are somebody else said, you do need a good source for seeing some kinda difference between other renders and his, so maybe some of this OT information could point the ones interested in the right direction.
just like a mobo sound chip and a killer pimped soundcard won't make the slightest difference on $15 speakers, you might have a point in saying that mVR would be pointless over Overlay on a 60Hz-only low quality LCD monitor.

you need to use a display w/ perfect smoothness to begin w/, and a proper color calibration(D65/2.3ish).

also LCD screens are made of cheapo plastic, and their sharpness is inexistent...blame polycarbonate for its uber-low OTF/MTF sharpness specs(a well known fact in human visual correction): MTF sharpness - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=MTF+sharpness&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

high quality projectors lenses and CRT monitors use high grade multi-AR mineral glass, their sharpness is no match w/ a LCD flat screen...and did I mention their blurry anti-glare layer? I played around w/ DIY pj's years back and taking it out was like night and day:

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu241/nikopol73100/32.jpg

I see 22" LCD monitors being sold for 89 EUR now, hah :rolleyes:

[STaRGaZeR]

wait for laser DLP, this will be the pinnacle of video entertainment..even in HDTV's, not just projectors(and no more RBE :devil:)

laser DLP - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=laser+DLP&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

the dead pixel/mura effects and so of LCD is a big no-no for me...CRT and DLP do everything LCD does, just better :cool:

the CR is unlimited on a CRT and the native contrast of a DarkChip4 can reach +4000:1, no way I will ever watch videos on a 600:1 CR display...anyway we've gone terribly OT I'm afraid, that's gonna make madshi a sad panda to have so much thread crapping on his private property :p

CRT, DLP and projectors don't have perfect geometry, so no, they don't do "everything an LCD does, just better" unfortunately. Every technology has its weaknesses.

Dead pixels? Just return the damn thing, it's defective :D

Also don't use crappy LCDs for your comparisons. A good LCD TV today has much higher CR than 600:1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKVp9Q-Z220&feature=player_embedded

I'd rather wait for OLED ;)

[leeperry]

you can pimp LCD as much as you want, it'll still go through polycarbonate...which carries a very low constringence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_number

here's a very good link(in french unfortunately): http://pages.globetrotter.net/assoqc/revues/24_4/24_4_virah.html

http://pages.globetrotter.net/assoqc/revues/24_4/virah-1.jpg

thick mineral glass goes up to 58 Abbe, polycarbonate 32...so twice more light dispersion :eek:

add the anti-glare panel on top of it, and MTF sharpness is just down the drain...no matter what you'll do, the panel itself will always be the weakest link.

I personnaly cannot stand polycarbonate glasses(they give me the feeling to watch through recycled Coke bottles, which they are...technically :D)

anyway, we should all enjoy our current set ups(I sure as hell do!) and eagerly wait for the next madVR update....so much time has passed, it'll be a blast for sure :p

[Alante]

just like a mobo sound chip and a killer pimped soundcard won't make the slightest difference on $15 speakers, you might have a point in saying that mVR would be pointless over Overlay on a 60Hz-only low quality LCD monitor.

you need to use a display w/ perfect smoothness to begin w/, and a proper color calibration(D65/2.3ish).

also LCD screens are made of cheapo plastic, and their sharpness is inexistent...blame polycarbonate for its uber-low OTF/MTF sharpness specs(a well known fact in human visual correction): MTF sharpness - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=MTF+sharpness&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

high quality projectors lenses and CRT monitors use high grade multi-AR mineral glass, their sharpness is no match w/ a LCD flat screen...and did I mention their blurry anti-glare layer? I played around w/ DIY pj's years back and taking it out was like night and day:

I see 22" LCD monitors being sold for 89 EUR now, hah :rolleyes:

And I see professional Eizo CRT's at a similar price. :p

If you put it that way, same as a Mercedes is pointless compared to a Ferrari F60. But then again, I don't seek perfection and you're somehow contradictory since mVR is free, as in cheapest software solution. If money would bother me so much, then I would build my personal IMAX. :rolleyes:

Take real audiophiles for example (not audiophiles wannabes), they invest a lot of money with their obsession, but you won't see them using a PC as source with Foobar2000, AIMP2 or other decent audio software... but hardware all the way...