[sssasss]

thanks for the info


is there someone working on the image quality issue with xbmc? if so how long till we expect some results?


its a real shame that the extreemly limited, buggy and old xbmp is much more usable then xbmc as a movie player just because of the clearly supirior image quality.

[pike]

that's enough bitching from you sssasss!
:veryangry:

[Gamester17]

why this is not related to this topic

again to make think clear; we don't support xbmp! now just to prove to you that your problem you got in xbmc has nothing to do with post-processing filters (because that's what this topic thread is about) i like to ask you to simply disable all post-processing filters in both xbmc and xbmp then compare the two with those specific 'new' xvid encoded files that you said before looked better quality-wise in xbmp, you should see that the quality is still better xbmp even with all post-processing filters disabled, ...so what then does your problem got to do with this topic?!, ...suggest you after that disable qpel in those 'new' xvid encoded files and then do another compare with xbmc and xbmp, the quality should then be the same in xbmc and xbmp (if the "hardware-overlay" renderer is selected in the xbmc settings).

[alexh]

i've found that most issues with respect to image quality stem from which renderer you use. there is definately an issue with the "high quality pixel shader" (if you dont believe me, just watch the intro to pirates of the caribbean xvid - vite, look at the smoke! the fine details get blended away into nothing).

i would recommend using hardware overlay instead.

i love xbmc, it's a great desktop / media player.

[C-Quel]

well i have always used high quality pixel *but* wow i see exactly what you mean there is a huge difference on that smoke scene right at the start of the film.

hardware overlay is a lot better in that scene.

[elupus]

yup, i found a sample that shows the blockiness.. thou i'm not sure we can fix that renderer. alot of work has been done on it to try to get it's quality up to par with overlay, but this far it apperently hasn't succeded completly.

i have a small idea that the overlay system on the xbox might run some smoothing on the chroma channel of the image, but i'm not sure at all.

[alexh]

alot of work has been done on it (high quality pixel shader renderer) to try to get it's quality up to par with overlay (hardware overlay renderer), but thus far it apparently hasn't succeeded completely.

i'm curious to know more about these different renderers, their development and the advantages / disadvantages of one against the other.

could you point me in the right direction?

[elupus]

alexh
know more as in how code? just look at the renderers under cores in xbmc source.

overlay renderer
-: lacks alpha blending of gui
(+): highest quality of video itself possibly

high quality renderer
+: has alpha blending
+: has field rendering ability
-: somewhat slower
(-): possibly somewhat less quality

low quality renderer
+: fastest
+: lowest memusage
-: lower quality

deanrparry:
just checked.. enabling smoothing does a very good job at removing the blockiness on highquality video renderer. i now have a vague idea that that is what the overlay renderer does automatically..


please continue the discussion of renderer quality in
http://www.xboxmediaplayer.de/cgi-bin....;t=3916

[Dolfhin]

i assume the degraded video quality is only caused by the deblocker and not by the other functions? so is it safe to enable those functions?

[akarimco]

it's a shame to see so many harsh words coming from the admins on here... some of us are kinda new at this stuff, and while we can read the faqs and guidelines, sometimes it's not always clear what we should say or where we should say it. i'd hate to think that xbmc is done by people who are akin to the linux elitests out there who like to bash noobs and just say rtfm all the time. xbmc is truly amazing, but it's also very complicated. helping people understand it will only make the users more loyal... telling them to "quit their bitching" will only push them away.

[pike]

it's a shame to see so many harsh words coming from the admins on here... some of us are kinda new at this stuff, and while we can read the faqs and guidelines, sometimes it's not always clear what we should say or where we should say it. i'd hate to think that xbmc is done by people who are akin to the linux elitests out there who like to bash noobs and just say rtfm all the time. xbmc is truly amazing, but it's also very complicated. helping people understand it will only make the users more loyal... telling them to "quit their bitching" will only push them away.

not a single person that claims xbmp have better quality have been able to back it up, so it's bitching :nuts:

[akarimco]

well hell, i've never even seen xbmp, so i dunno... i just know that xbmc rocks my socks, but it still seems like petty bickering, and considering i've had nothing but the best experiences talking to people in the "xbox scene", i was just concerned that people were turning nasty... but hell, you're the guys making the program, so be as nasty as you want as long as you keep working on it! :d

[alexh]

something has changed with the high quality pixel shader. in the current version it now doesnt produce the artifacts it used to do. i am using the smoke at the start of poc as my test.

not sure which version it changed but hqps now seems as good as hardware overlay.

i would like to have known what changed.

[jmarshall]

nothing quality-wise.

the only thing that's changed in the last 2 months is a hardware performance related change (swath_width) which does not effect the quality or otherwise (just more efficient use of the gpu).

cheers,
jonathan

[Frogular]

so basically 1) the bug is with mplayer, and 2) we shouldn't enable post processing?