Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 1154006" data-attributes="member: 82144">Yes! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Your comparison of TV and video is like comparing apples with oranges.The live TV is 1920x1080 interlaced (ie. 1080i) at 50 fields (25 frames) per second.The video is 1920x1080 progressive (ie. 1080p) at 24 frames per second.The video requires much less processing because:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">It is progressive instead of interlaced. No deinterlacing required.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Frame rate is lower (24 vs. 25/50).</li>
</ol>Together these make a big difference.[edit: You should be able to use Windows Task Manager and the AMD driver configuration to check/compare the CPU and GPU loads in each case.][edit2: It would also be a good idea to use the watchdog to attach full log files for the live TV test so that we can check that the problem is not due to other factors.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 1154006, member: 82144"] Yes! :) Your comparison of TV and video is like comparing apples with oranges. The live TV is 1920x1080 interlaced (ie. 1080i) at 50 fields (25 frames) per second. The video is 1920x1080 [B]progressive[/B] (ie. 1080[B]p[/B]) at [B]24[/B] frames per second. The video requires much less processing because: [LIST=1] [*]It is progressive instead of interlaced. No deinterlacing required. [*]Frame rate is lower (24 vs. 25/50). [/LIST] Together these make a big difference. [edit: You should be able to use Windows Task Manager and the AMD driver configuration to check/compare the CPU and GPU loads in each case.] [edit2: It would also be a good idea to use the watchdog to attach full log files for the live TV test so that we can check that the problem is not due to other factors.] [/QUOTE]

Verification