home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Support
Codecs, External Players
SAF v4.00 ''stable'' (StandAlone Filters) - DXVA ready (H.264 and VC-1).
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="edterbak" data-source="post: 498946" data-attributes="member: 69192"><p><span style="font-size: 9px">This is a bit off-topic, but here it is nevertheless... </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">I think this topic is subjective. Motionflow kind of things or other buzzwords like 100hz or 200hz or 400hz.. (whatever) is just marketing doing its job. If you have i.e. two frames with a football flying through the air from on side to another, the fancy motionflow thing makes up (interpolates) an average frame in between. The result is not a extra frame with a round ball (we know a ball should be round), but it is now an oval ball. This is (in my opinion) a bad thing quality wise. The "feel" is indeed more fluid and in slow scenes it is nice, but the image is wrong with fast moving scenes. This is (in my opinion) a fundamental flaw of this technique.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">But ofcourse, this does not say anything about what people like to see more. A taste thing.</span> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>On-topic;</p><p>I would like to use AC3Filter for SPDIF as well. I have never had problems with it. I have always used it as post procesing and its flawless for me. (atleast Im not aware of problems.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="edterbak, post: 498946, member: 69192"] [SIZE="1"]This is a bit off-topic, but here it is nevertheless... I think this topic is subjective. Motionflow kind of things or other buzzwords like 100hz or 200hz or 400hz.. (whatever) is just marketing doing its job. If you have i.e. two frames with a football flying through the air from on side to another, the fancy motionflow thing makes up (interpolates) an average frame in between. The result is not a extra frame with a round ball (we know a ball should be round), but it is now an oval ball. This is (in my opinion) a bad thing quality wise. The "feel" is indeed more fluid and in slow scenes it is nice, but the image is wrong with fast moving scenes. This is (in my opinion) a fundamental flaw of this technique. But ofcourse, this does not say anything about what people like to see more. A taste thing.[/SIZE] :) On-topic; I would like to use AC3Filter for SPDIF as well. I have never had problems with it. I have always used it as post procesing and its flawless for me. (atleast Im not aware of problems.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
Support
Codecs, External Players
SAF v4.00 ''stable'' (StandAlone Filters) - DXVA ready (H.264 and VC-1).
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom