Reply to thread

Message

OK, I'll continue the thread myself.

Found a link to a test at anandtech
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2551&p=1

They compare video quality from recent ATI and NVIDIA boards, especially with respect to de-interlacing.

They use Nvidia pure video decoder for both the ati and the nvidia board. I thought that in order to utilise the hardware it should be vendor dependent... Trusting their judgement, I decided to try Nvidia pure video, even though I have an ATI 9550 board. (BTW, I found some kind of ATI decoder on the net - I got no picture with that one. There is a download at ATI, but you have to have a CD with ATI multimedia centre in order to download, and I don't).

I have a dualboot system, with MCE 2005 on one partition and XP Home with MP on an other. I installed Nvidia pure video on both systems.

When I watch MCE 2005, I see quite a lot of interlacing artefacts, but the colours are deep and the contrast feels high. Apart from the de-interlacing, the video feels very good to watch.

When I boot to XP Home and MP, the de-interlacing is much, much better! While the feeling in the colours are more dirty. Strange - same hardware, same decoder.

So what makes the difference?

The ATI Radeon driver? In MCE I installed some kind of MCE version of catalyst. But I thought it is identical to the normal XP driver. Maybe it's not.

Does MCE tweak the drivers, esp. colours in some way? Is it the MCE application, or the OS?

In MP there is a de-interlacing setting. I had it at "Best". Does that explain the improved de-interlacing with MP? If so, can I tweak pure video in MCE too, eg. by some registry setting?

The next obvious test is to get MP running on the MCE installation, but when I tried I didn't get any picture at all... And then time was up, the weekend was over.

If I get it running, I might give a short report.

/hellmelt

<blockquote data-quote="hellmelt" data-source="post: 25649" data-attributes="member: 13429">OK, I'll continue the thread myself.Found a link to a test at anandtech<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2551&amp;p=1" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2551&amp;p=1</a>They compare video quality from recent ATI and NVIDIA boards, especially with respect to de-interlacing.They use Nvidia pure video decoder for both the ati and the nvidia board. I thought that in order to utilise the hardware it should be vendor dependent... Trusting their judgement, I decided to try Nvidia pure video, even though I have an ATI 9550 board. (BTW, I found some kind of ATI decoder on the net - I got no picture with that one. There is a download at ATI, but you have to have a CD with ATI multimedia centre in order to download, and I don't).I have a dualboot system, with MCE 2005 on one partition and XP Home with MP on an other. I installed Nvidia pure video on both systems. When I watch MCE 2005, I see quite a lot of interlacing artefacts, but the colours are deep and the contrast feels high. Apart from the de-interlacing, the video feels very good to watch.When I boot to XP Home and MP, the de-interlacing is much, much better! While the feeling in the colours are more dirty. Strange - same hardware, same decoder.So what makes the difference? The ATI Radeon driver? In MCE I installed some kind of MCE version of catalyst. But I thought it is identical to the normal XP driver. Maybe it's not.Does MCE tweak the drivers, esp. colours in some way? Is it the MCE application, or the OS?In MP there is a de-interlacing setting. I had it at &quot;Best&quot;. Does that explain the improved de-interlacing with MP? If so, can I tweak pure video in MCE too, eg. by some registry setting?The next obvious test is to get MP running on the MCE installation, but when I tried I didn't get any picture at all... And then time was up, the weekend was over.If I get it running, I might give a short report./hellmelt</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hellmelt, post: 25649, member: 13429"] OK, I'll continue the thread myself. Found a link to a test at anandtech [url]http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2551&p=1[/url] They compare video quality from recent ATI and NVIDIA boards, especially with respect to de-interlacing. They use Nvidia pure video decoder for both the ati and the nvidia board. I thought that in order to utilise the hardware it should be vendor dependent... Trusting their judgement, I decided to try Nvidia pure video, even though I have an ATI 9550 board. (BTW, I found some kind of ATI decoder on the net - I got no picture with that one. There is a download at ATI, but you have to have a CD with ATI multimedia centre in order to download, and I don't). I have a dualboot system, with MCE 2005 on one partition and XP Home with MP on an other. I installed Nvidia pure video on both systems. When I watch MCE 2005, I see quite a lot of interlacing artefacts, but the colours are deep and the contrast feels high. Apart from the de-interlacing, the video feels very good to watch. When I boot to XP Home and MP, the de-interlacing is much, much better! While the feeling in the colours are more dirty. Strange - same hardware, same decoder. So what makes the difference? The ATI Radeon driver? In MCE I installed some kind of MCE version of catalyst. But I thought it is identical to the normal XP driver. Maybe it's not. Does MCE tweak the drivers, esp. colours in some way? Is it the MCE application, or the OS? In MP there is a de-interlacing setting. I had it at "Best". Does that explain the improved de-interlacing with MP? If so, can I tweak pure video in MCE too, eg. by some registry setting? The next obvious test is to get MP running on the MCE installation, but when I tried I didn't get any picture at all... And then time was up, the weekend was over. If I get it running, I might give a short report. /hellmelt [/QUOTE]