[mythtv-users] tv-out quality problems
Michael T. Dean
mtdean at thirdcontact.com
Mon Oct 24 18:51:45 EDT 2005
Michael Bochynski wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 15:07 -0400, Michael T. Dean wrote:
>>>However, honestly, the advantages of NVIDIA card you presented are not
>>>overwhelming. The MythTV box will be used for MythTV only, nothing else,
>>>hence OpenGL does not matter, am I right?
>>OpenGL is currently used by MythMusic (Goom!!!! among other
>>visualizations), and many games that are played using MythGame. Then,
>>there's OpenGL vsync for smooth frame delivery.
>>Also, MythUI--which will probably show up in 0.20--will use OpenGL as
>>the painting backend by default and will be the best reason to have
>>hardware-based OpenGL acceleration support.
>While MythGames are not on the list, MythMusic and new MythUI is worth considering.
>BTW, do you know when 0.20 is planned to be released?
Generally, the idea seems to be to release it "when it's finished." ;)
Even guessing a release date for 0.19 is way beyond my abilities. But,
when it is released (0.19, 0.20, or any other version), it should be
worth the wait. :)
>>>I don't even have, and don't
>>>plan to have, a regular monitor/LCD at home which I could use :) Signal
>>>(MythTV) goes to TV out only.
>>>Right now I output TV to my receiver and then to TV. While HDTV is a
>>>nice-to-have, i do not expect to have it in the next 6 - 12 month, while
>>>I will watch TV in the next 6 - 12 months :) Hence having DVI, HDTV and
>>>so on is not the highest priority. I will probably want to add it,
>>Yeah, me too. But then again, plans change. I just bought an
>>HDTV--something I've been saying I wouldn't do...
>:) yep. I totally agree. You never know. However, while I'd like to
>have nice (new) tv, trekking in Peru and visiting Mexico, Paris and Toronto
>takes precedence :)
I hope you do better at sticking to your low-cost resolution than I
>>But, it's your
>>decision to make--I was just trying to answer your question, "whether it
>>makes more sense to get PVR-350 (I don't need dual tuners of 500, since
>>I use cable box) or nice NVIDIA graphics card for better support for
>>I'm just thinking that if you're truly concerned with the pursuit of
>>video perfection, you'll eventually find that NTSC/PAL--not your
>>video/capture card--is the weak link in the chain. :)
>>>I am going solely after the picture (TV) quality. I do not mind
>>>proprietary drivers, since I hope I have my compile-from-source times
>>>behind me, starting with the (very) early Linux times. I know, however,
>>>that ATI (proprietary) drivers are worse than NVIDIA ones. BTW, which
>>>NVIIDA card is worth looking at? I don't want to end up with card which
>>>is not supported under Linux at all.
>>Like I said, the PVR-350 will provide that placebo effect that makes you
>>believe for sure that you have the best possible picture quality. ;)
>yeah ... and since my goal was not to spend any money (so far so good - old
>parts from unused computers of mine), it seems that graphics card would be a
>better solution in a long run.
Also, see if you can do anything with your current configuration. It's
quite possible that modifying the recording parameters/CODEC or
modifying your ATI/X settings may be all that's needed. And, if getting
a new $40-$60 NVIDIA 5200 card doesn't fix the problems you're seeing,
you'll have to dig into the configuration stuff, anyway. (BTW, I can't
recommend a brand for the 5200--I don't know anything about them. It's
hard enough trying to keep up with NVIDIA's/ATI's, "let's use our
competitor's naming scheme, but with a higher number" games as they move
from generation to generation of GPU's let alone trying to keep up with
the best 3rd-party card makers.)
>And I admit, that software encoding itself, does not have a huge impact on
>the system, I can live with that.
And decoding is even less of a hit, so even if you use a PVR-150 for
encoding, offloading decoding of standard-definition sized MPEG-2 to a
PVR-350 doesn't provide a big benefit. Now if we could offload
1920x1080 MPEG-2/MPEG-4/MPEG-4 AVC (H-264), that would be a whole
different story (much more like the story when the PVR-350 first came
>>Totally OT rant: I've got to admit that having received this message
>>from you, I'm extremely disappointed with Evolution. I know it's trying
>>to be the Outlook replacement, but do they really want to make it as
>>awful as Outlook? It actually puts a one-celled table containing
>>another one-celled table containing your entire message (and, therefore,
>>the entire body of the HTML page) in the HTML version of your multipart
>>message. And, it does the same HTML-obfuscation that MS FrontPage
>>does--i.e. opening and closing font tags all over (although FrontPage
>>goes much farther than Evolution with the obfuscation). And, I won't
>>even mention the deprecated HTML 4.01 instead of xHTML (or even
> I couldn't agree more. Not to mention that integration with Exchange
> is far from perfect, attachments are randomly
> changed from a supported type/extension (zip, doc) to a binary (.bin)
> type. No idea why and whet it happens, however
> it's so frustrating that I have to use VMWare with outlook just for
> the purpose of sending the attachments.
I'll cross my fingers and hope it gets better. I'm just glad I don't
need a LookOut! work-alike. Good luck with Myth (and Evolution).
More information about the mythtv-users