2009/8/22 Thomas Hilber <vdr@xxxxxx>: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:31:43AM +1000, Torgeir Veimo wrote: >> In my experience, you just have to do deinterlacing in vdpau with >> interlaced content, even when displaying on an interlaced display. If >> you try to output interlaced material directly, you get ghosting since >> the weaved frames are copied to the progressive surface, and the >> output resolution might be different than the weave pattern. > > the main reason why nvidia chooses to deinterlace always even if you use an > interlaced video timing is not the scaling problem you mention. This could > be eventually solved (albeit not perfectly) by scaling both fields > independently. > > The main reason is: even with VDPAU there still exists no synchronization > between stream and video timing. I accept that they prefer "always" deinterlacing because they didn't implement proper field parity in their architecture / api / implementation. But I still think they screwed up. The matrox mga 450/550 cards do field parity pretty well, with a simple api, and in 98% of cases with predictable results and with manageable clock drift workarounds. Too bad they offer no mpeg2 or h.264 acceleration. -- -Tor _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
