+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Development (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Forum: Kodi Application (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=93)
+--- Thread: WIP Windows 3D MVC Bluray test builds (/showthread.php?tid=265299)
3D Bluray - Cinephile - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 06:37)nickr Wrote: They come already compressed on the bluray, so still have to be decoded.
Yes, and still it looks the same on both NUC and PS4. If you use inferior hardware with lacking decoding capabilities then of course PQ will suffer. But why would you do that in the first place?
RE: 3D Bluray - wesk05 - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 06:34)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: I only watch uncompressed 1080p Blu-ray rips at 24fps. They all play exactly the same on either my i3 NUC or PS4 integrated Blu-ray player (with the latter being used for 3D movies on disc). I'm sure their hardware decoding varies, yet the end result is the same.Well... vision is a sensory perception and is subjective. So, in your case you are not seeing the difference.
Here is a test that I did comparing the "output" from different media players. It was a display independent test. The source material was uncompressed Blu-ray rip. Tell me whether you can see a difference between the devices.
Picture Quality Test
3D Bluray - Cinephile - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 06:39)wesk05 Wrote:(2016-03-20, 06:34)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: I only watch uncompressed 1080p Blu-ray rips at 24fps. They all play exactly the same on either my i3 NUC or PS4 integrated Blu-ray player (with the latter being used for 3D movies on disc). I'm sure their hardware decoding varies, yet the end result is the same.Well... vision is a sensory perception and is subjective. So, in your case you are not seeing the difference.
Here is a test that I did comparing the "output" from different media players. It was a display independent test. The source material was uncompressed Blu-ray rip. Tell me whether you can see a difference between the devices.
Sorry, mate. I can't see the test file?
RE: 3D Bluray - wesk05 - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 06:40)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Sorry, mate. I can't see the test file?
I have provided the link now
Took me a while to find the post.
3D Bluray - Cinephile - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 06:42)wesk05 Wrote:(2016-03-20, 06:40)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Sorry, mate. I can't see the test file?
I have provided the link now
Thanks, am only on my phone at the moment so will need to get back to you once I am on the PC.
RE: 3D Bluray - Dave the Minion - 2016-03-20
More of the same miss-information spreading nonsense. That entire "test" post is just laughable. How, exactly, are you "capturing" these test images from different devices? Moving images taken from a player into a PC then snap-captured into any format, lossless or otherwise, is a ridicilous concept from start to finish. Unless you are extracting the DATA from each output and comparing that then you might as well say on player cures all disease as well.
Digital is digital. It's 0 or it's 1. There is no 1.5 that only some players can extract. There's no hidden 2 that those special carbon frozen cables with non-dialect contacting batteries costing $10,000 can magically bring to life.
RE: 3D Bluray - wesk05 - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:10)Dave the Minion Wrote: More of the same miss-information spreading nonsense. That entire "test" post is just laughable. How, exactly, are you "capturing" these test images from different devices? Moving images taken from a player into a PC then snap-captured into any format, lossless or otherwise, is a ridicilous concept from start to finish. Unless you are extracting the DATA from each output and comparing that then you might as well say on player cures all disease as well.
Digital is digital. It's 0 or it's 1. There is no 1.5 that only some players can extract. There's no hidden 2 that those special carbon frozen cables with non-dialect contacting batteries costing $10,000 can magically bring to life.
So, I guess you will despise my entire institution that certifies decoders!
You also need to re-read my methodology.
No one is saying that there is 1.5. You are simply ignoring the fact that there is video processing involved in the decoding/rendering process.
3D Bluray - Cinephile - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:10)Dave the Minion Wrote: More of the same miss-information spreading nonsense. That entire "test" post is just laughable. How, exactly, are you "capturing" these test images from different devices? Moving images taken from a player into a PC then snap-captured into any format, lossless or otherwise, is a ridicilous concept from start to finish. Unless you are extracting the DATA from each output and comparing that then you might as well say on player cures all disease as well.
Digital is digital. It's 0 or it's 1. There is no 1.5 that only some players can extract. There's no hidden 2 that those special carbon frozen cables with non-dialect contacting batteries costing $10,000 can magically bring to life.
Finally someone else that gets it.
Just like people claiming higher-end AVRs produce better sound this is a dead-end argument. If your decoder covers all the basic functions you're set. That's all that matters.
RE: 3D Bluray - wesk05 - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:34)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Finally someone else that gets it.
Just like people claiming higher-end AVRs produce better sound this is a dead-end argument. If your decoder covers all the basic functions you're set. That's all that matters.
And I would say, there are two people in the world that doesn't seem to get it.
3D Bluray - Cinephile - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:38)wesk05 Wrote:(2016-03-20, 07:34)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Finally someone else that gets it.
Just like people claiming higher-end AVRs produce better sound this is a dead-end argument. If your decoder covers all the basic functions you're set. That's all that matters.
And I would say, there are two people in the world that doesn't seem to get it.
Trust me, there's entire forums dedicated to proving you wrong. Analog signals are prone to fluctuating quality because of x,y,z but digital is just that: 0 or 1.
Basic science that can't be disapproved.
RE: 3D Bluray - wesk05 - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:42)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Trust me, there's entire forums dedicated to proving you wrong. Analog signals are prone to fluctuating quality because of x,y,z but digital is just that: 0 or 1.We are not talking about transmission. We are talking about how the digital data is decoded and output. The decoded data undergoes processing before it is output and this is where the differences are.
Basic science that can't be disapproved.
RE: 3D Bluray - Dave the Minion - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:31)wesk05 Wrote: So, I guess you will despise my entire institution that certifies decoders!
You also need to re-read my methodology.
No one is saying that there is 1.5. You are simply ignoring the fact that there is video processing involved in the decoding/rendering process.
Your methodology is to send a signal into a capture card (where it is processed) then save to a different video format than the original (which requires being processed) then extracting a still image (more processing) and converting that still image to yet another format (You fill in the blank here).
You start with 0's and 1' and do not 1 but 4 different levels of processing to obtain your "comparison". Then you claim "individual subjectivity: in some silly attempt to justify your results. It's all snake oil. Your idea of what is better is to take the original source and process it to make it look prettier to your eyes. The same as boosting contrast or sharpness or using ridiculous 120hz "smooth motion" nonsense to "improve" picture quality. Might as well put some Q-ray's on top of your players so their can magically align all the electrons in the same direction to give you enhanced image fidelity.
Unless you are pulling the EXACT data from a specific frame on every device as well as the source itself and then comparing that data from one device to another vs the source you aren't comparing the same anything. Any difference you would find vs the source are not making the image better in any way, shape or form. What's on the disc is the best the image can be until a better source is mastered.
All your tests prove, if anything, is that some players provide less-than-source quality and should for that reason be avoided. Not one player will make the picture better. Period.
3D Bluray - Cinephile - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:45)wesk05 Wrote:(2016-03-20, 07:42)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Trust me, there's entire forums dedicated to proving you wrong. Analog signals are prone to fluctuating quality because of x,y,z but digital is just that: 0 or 1.We are not talking about transmission. We are talking about how the digital data is decoded and output. The decoded data undergoes processing before it is output and this is where the differences are.
Basic science that can't be disapproved.
I understand that. But no matter the level of sophistication of the hardware decoder, ultimately the content of my .mkv file is either extracted or it isn't. 1:1 playback should not require messing about with the file.
Sure, upscaling SD content to HD is another story. But that's not what's being discussed here.
RE: 3D Bluray - Dave the Minion - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:34)HomeTheatreGuru Wrote: Finally someone else that gets it.
Just like people claiming higher-end AVRs produce better sound this is a dead-end argument. If your decoder covers all the basic functions you're set. That's all that matters.
The AVR argument can be relevant AFTER the digital signal becomes analog. Then things can happen to it within the AVR or cables or whatnot. But generally unless you stick your cheap AVR next to a massive unshielded power supply or run your speaker lines intermingled with poorly insulated power cables the differences are in-audible or general nonsense.
A higher end AVR will give you more power per channel RMS and speaker flexibility as well as usually more input/output options and include more processing options like Atmos and dts:x. Plus more post-processing options to make youe mono YouTube videos sound like some fancy (fake) surround sound. My cheap sub $300 digital receiver I bought back in 2000 was amazing for the time and size of room/speakers I had it connected to.
Consumer electronics is such a hilarious snake oil industry. You don't see any of this nonsense in professional equipment because the people there know the truth and aren't fooled by flashy marketing and useless gimmicks.
RE: 3D Bluray - wesk05 - 2016-03-20
(2016-03-20, 07:49)Dave the Minion Wrote: Your methodology is to send a signal into a capture card (where it is processed) then save to a different video format than the original (which requires being processed) then extracting a still image (more processing) and converting that still image to yet another format (You fill in the blank here).
You start with 0's and 1' and do not 1 but 4 different levels of processing to obtain your "comparison". Then you claim "individual subjectivity: in some silly attempt to justify your results. It's all snake oil. Your idea of what is better is to take the original source and process it to make it look prettier to your eyes. The same as boosting contrast or sharpness or using ridiculous 120hz "smooth motion" nonsense to "improve" picture quality. Might as well put some Q-ray's on top of your players so their can magically align all the electrons in the same direction to give you enhanced image fidelity.
Unless you are pulling the EXACT data from a specific frame on every device as well as the source itself and then comparing that data from one device to another vs the source you aren't comparing the same anything. Any difference you would find vs the source are not making the image better in any way, shape or form. What's on the disc is the best the image can be until a better source is mastered.
All your tests prove, if anything, is that some players provide less-than-source quality and should for that reason be avoided. Not one player will make the picture better. Period.
It is captured as raw 10-bit RGB or 10-bit YUV (for Minix U1). It cannot get any better than this. The raw file is opened in Davinci Resolve, one of the best NLE in the industry. The best suited file formats were used for the exporting process. I agree that there is format conversion taking place in the export process, but it is applied to all the captures in the same way. It has also been assumed that DPX/PNG format conversion is the same for all the exports. This is why it is safe to say that the differences in picture between the devices can be attributed solely to the output from the device.
The goal of the comparison test was to compare the output from different devices. It was never meant to be a source-output fidelity test. The reason why asked participants to pick what they thought was the best is for the same reason that I mentioned before: visual perception is subjective. What one individual perceives as good might not be the same for another individual. Are you going to argue against this fact? If you bothered to check the results of the test, you would have seen that several of the participants picked the exact same device (and they all picked the device blindly) as having different a picture quality .
Quote:Unless you are pulling the EXACT data from a specific frame on every device as well as the source itself and then comparing that data from one device to another vs the source you aren't comparing the same anything.How exactly do you propose to do this?