ATI and nVidia crush high-end DVD players

[GTaudiophile]

Interesting Read!

 

[Lonyo]

404, page not found.

 

[Pocatello]

I found that my videocard is much better at playing DVD a long time ago, but then my DVD player only cost $150 . I didn't know that there are DVD players that cost more than a $1K. It almost make the Samsung hi-def Blue-Ray disc player a bargain.

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
404, page not found.

 

[imported_RedStar]

interesting.perhaps if you read german. main body text never came up either.

 

[Sable]

Yeah but nvidia crushes them more. (JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

Here's a link that works btw:

http://www.hardware.info/en-UK/articles...TI_and_nVidia_crush__2000_DVD_players/

 

[NoStateofMind]

I don't know much about pure video on nVidia cards. Can you watch TV with them? I know ATI needs a TV tuner and I'm assuming the same with nVidia. Which would be recommended?

 

[Hyperlite]

boooooooooooo cmon folks we all know price has very little to do with the quality of a DVD player. Theres a good reason they didn't test an Oppo Dv971H. why? it costs $200 and wipes the floor with $10000 dvd players.

Text

 

[rbV5]

Its about time reviewers put Purevideo and Avivo against the real competition...ffdshow, dscaler, MPC, zoomplayer and the like, dont you think?

Its all nice they keep comparing to hardware systems, but why continue to ignore the longstanding, defacto HTPC standard...software video rendering that is freely/cheaply avaialble to anyone with patience?

Cmon video reviewers, lets see how they compare against commonly available software decoding and not just using HQV either, I suspect by now that the drivers could be tweaked specifically to perform the tests themselves.

That aside, it is good to see video rendering being taken more seriously. Nvidia's Edge enhancement and noise reduction sliders look like a cool new driver feature, hopefully they will continue to push each other.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

You will be hard pressed to find any DVD player on the market that can compete with the Theatertek+ffdshow combination. When properly setup the results are astonishing.

 

[xtknight]

This is why it's important to have competition. You really think either company would have bothered to improve HQV test scores otherwise?

 

[TheRyuu]

Purevideo (and 90's series DVD enhancements)+ffdshow+Media Player Classic=the best DVD watching machine you'll ever make
(ffdshow+MPC are all part of the CCCP)

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Purevideo (and 90's series DVD enhancements)+ffdshow+Media Player Classic=the best DVD watching machine you'll ever make
(ffdshow+MPC are all part of the CCCP)

I find that Zoomplayer is better in terms of DVD playback than MPC, but that's just my experience.

 

[Wreckage]

Yay! Just in time for Blu-ray....

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Purevideo (and 90's series DVD enhancements)+ffdshow+Media Player Classic=the best DVD watching machine you'll ever make
(ffdshow+MPC are all part of the CCCP)

I find that Zoomplayer is better in terms of DVD playback than MPC, but that's just my experience.

I think the matter of Player is personal preference. I think if all the codecs and sh!t like that are the same then the final output is the same to me

I think the debate of ZP/MPC/VLC is all personal preference. I find it's easier to get ffdshow and Purevideo working with MPC then any of the others and thats why I use it, for it's ease of installation. To each his own I guess

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
I think the debate of ZP/MPC/VLC is all personal preference. I find it's easier to get ffdshow and Purevideo working with MPC then any of the others and thats why I use it, for it's ease of installation. To each his own I guess

Well the main reason I prefer Zoomplayer is that it has more features and also allows for more advanced customizations. It also handles aspect ratio much better than MPC.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

how much a difference do these so called high end players make. i mean i always watch everuything with MPC .
my only installed codec pack is K-lite mega codec pack.

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
how much a difference do these so called high end players make. i mean i always watch everuything with MPC .
my only installed codec pack is K-lite mega codec pack.

I hate the K-lite codec pack.
What do you need 4 different mpeg(4) codecs for the same dam thing for?

 

[The Raven]

Originally posted by: wizboy11

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
how much a difference do these so called high end players make. i mean i always watch everuything with MPC .
my only installed codec pack is K-lite mega codec pack.

I hate the K-lite codec pack.
What do you need 4 different mpeg(4) codecs for the same dam thing for?

Sorry don't really want to continue the 'off-topicness' of this but...

I had problems playing mpeg-4 on quicktime but not on nero, and vice-versa.
Something is fishy. There must be more than one mpeg-4 codec necessary. Not really an argument I guess, but interesting none the less.

 

[rbV5]

I find it's easier to get ffdshow and Purevideo working with MPC then any of the others and thats why I use it, for it's ease of installation. To each his own I guess

Doesn't using ffdshow trump Purevideo hardware by forcing software rendering mode? How does that work exactly?

 

[TanisHalfElven]

imo k-lite rules. i never have to install a codec ever.

anyway can anyone show some screens to show the difference b/w high end dvd players and low end one


one thing i'll say is motion adaptive deinterlacing is extreamly slow even on my opty. i'd like something fasr enough to do that in real time. do avivo and purevideo allow that ?

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: rbV5

I find it's easier to get ffdshow and Purevideo working with MPC then any of the others and thats why I use it, for it's ease of installation. To each his own I guess

Doesn't using ffdshow trump Purevideo hardware by forcing software rendering mode? How does that work exactly?

Yup.
You still get Purevideo just not hardware accelerated. No biggy if you CPU can handel it.
I'd rather Purevideo ran in software mode with ffdshow then to just have Purevideo w/o ffdshow.

 

[rbV5]

Yup.
You still get Purevideo just not hardware accelerated. No biggy if you CPU can handel it.
I'd rather Purevideo ran in software mode with ffdshow then to just have Purevideo w/o ffdshow.

What Purevideo features are still supported in software mode? Nvidia hardware decoding, einterlacing and post processing require the DXVA that ffdshow disables...whats left that is still supported?

 

[xtknight]

From my understanding ffdshow uses none of PureVideo (certainly not H.264 acceleration). I suspect it can accelerate MPEG-2 but it cannot use any of PureVideo's image enhancement features either.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: xtknight
From my understanding ffdshow uses none of PureVideo (certainly not H.264 acceleration). I suspect it can accelerate MPEG-2 but it cannot use any of PureVideo's image enhancement features either.

So, basically you would be using the purevideo decoder in software mode and ffdshow for post processing...meaning the CPU. Thats what I'm getting at. Any recent vcard will support that very configuration.

It seems reasonable to include those types of configurations when doing these types of tests/comparisons since I regularly hear users tout them as being superior. Basically, you are talking about disabling the hardware feature set in favor of a software solution.

If hardware features like AVIVO and Purevideo are superior (or at least the hardware components of the feature sets); Why not compare them against software solutions? Why are users disabling the features or at least part of the feaure sets in favor of software solutions.....and yes, for H.264 and MPEG/DVD/trasport streams ect.