Announcement

**jeroen** · 17 October 1999, 06:27

How good or bad dvd looks on the g400 depends on the software player. both windvd and cinemaster give excellent results with the right settings.

The hollywood plus is all right for watching dvd on a tv, but it looks terrible on a pc monitor or data-grade projector. Like i said, my home theater pc has a leadtek s800 mpact 2 decoder. The mpact 2 chipset gives a native progressive scan picture (by ignoring the 3/2 pulldown flags on film dvd's), which really looks breathtaking on a big screen.

Unfortunately the mpact 2 only does 16-bit color depth, that's why i was looking at the g400 for dvd. In combination with a player that can ignore 3/2 pulldown flags (windvd and cinemaster both can do this) the picture should be even better at 720x480x32.

A word about region codes, i use region selector v2.50 and it works with both windvd and cinemaster.

You're right about ntsc being 30 fps. I should have said '3x24 fps for film sources' because that's what progressive scan dvd is all about. And that's why 120hz is even better: 4x30 fps for ntsc video (e.g. tv shows on dvd) and 5x24 for film.

**Zwisch** · 17 October 1999, 14:39

isnt NTSc supposed to be 29.99... hence 60 would be fine? 25 is usualy PAL.. but in either way, you will only get 60 out of TV settings with the card.

**Ashley** · 17 October 1999, 15:30

With a NEC 950 as primary, you should be able to hit up to 100Hz at 1280x1024 - check your Windows monitor selection to ensure it is correct, and not listed as a generic "Plug and Play monitor".

With the projector, the max would be 1280x1024@60Hz on the 2nd head, but a 16:9 resolution like 1280x720 might be more suitable and would allow you to use a higher refresh rate.

If you haven't already, you might want to check the AV Science/HTPC forum for advice from people with similar rigs:
http://www.avsforum.com/ubbcgi/forum...r=12&SUBMIT=Go

**Pelle** · 17 October 1999, 16:47

In my opinion the DVD-Output of the G400 DH isn't too good. If I were you, I would rather get a dedicated DVD-decoder like the Hollywood Plus. I've got both a Max and a H+, and the H+ has the additional benefit of the Zone Selector - Software, that will let you disable Macrovision and change the Regin Code.

Oh, and you are wrong with the 24 fps Ntsc. NTSC is always approx. 30 fps (59.94 interlaced frames), and most movies on DVD aren't stored with 24 fps AFAIK, but with 30 frames by looping every 6th frame. Just like on video (which, of course, isn't really a good sign ) So a 60 Hz setup should be just perfect.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm fumbling with dvd for about a year now and am rather confident that i know what i'm talking about

**KvHagedorn** · 17 October 1999, 20:59

Why the hell are so many people (who are obviously not short on cash) so bound and determined to use their computers to watch DVD movies??? Did you not know that they make much better machines for this purpose? They are known as "DVD Players". Yes, it's cool to be able to watch a DVD on your computer, but I would never use one as my movie source in a serious audio/video system. Hardware decoding of the mpeg2 signal and component video outputs SERIOUSLY blow away anything a computer running software decoding could do, not to mention the extra crap the signal has to go through in your computer. I've been in the audio/video business for 10 years and this penchant for using computer-based DVD players in one's home theater system is one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen. There are other technologies out there besides the computer you are so used to. Why don't you pull your head out of the sand and notice?

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[This message has been edited by KvHagedorn (edited 18 October 1999).]

**jeroen** · 17 October 1999, 22:11

Zwisch - yes ntsc is 30 fps, so 60hz or any multiple of that is ideal... for ntsc. But, i'm talking about progressive scan dvd. See my previous post about 24 fps and the 3/2 pulldown flags.

Ashley - 1280x1024 on the monitor isn't good enough, i want 1600x1200. But this isn't the biggest problem, it's the 60hz refresh rate on the projector that's unacceptable. 1280x720 on the projector isn't a good idea either. Native dvd resolution is 720x480, anything higher and the picture will be scaled. OK less visible scan lines, but the picture will be softer with false detail. And, why do you say 1280x720 would allow me to use a higher refresh rate? So far i've only been able to get 60hz on the 2nd head.

Kvhagedorn - people use their computers to watch dvd movies because at this moment it's the only way to get true progressive scan dvd. Yes there is another way and that involves a regular player + a $20k faroudja line doubler. Now what would you do if you had to choose between that and a $150 pc card? A few companies (toshiba, princeton) announced progressive scan players to come out later this year, but looking at the specs these players don't do native progressive scan, the picture is just run through an inferior scaler to produce a progressive signal but they don't just remove the 3/2 pulldown flags. Also output will be 60hz.

Note that for progressive scan dvd you need a display device capable of at least 31.5khz horizontal refresh rate. This rules out most regular tv's, but pc monitors, data-grade projectors or hdtv's are perfect. But of course you know all that, being in the a/v biz for 10 years?

So yes, kvhagedorn, i do have a 'serious a/v system'. And all your component outputs will blow away is other INTERLACED gear, not my superior progressive scan setup. And don't worry my signal doesn't have to go through any crap. The video goes straight to the projector via a d-sub (videocard) to 5xbnc (projector) cable, and audio goes straight to the dolby digital amp via digital coax. The signal path is also shorter than on your setup, at least one less d/a conversion step. And, all equipment is run through apc line conditioners.

Oh yeah, and kvhagedorn, go check out the forum ashley suggested, you might learn a thing or two.

**Ashley** · 18 October 1999, 01:05

Jeroen - I was simply pointing out that, e.g., 1280x720 requires a signifantly lower pixel clock than 1280x1024, so a higher refresh rate is possible - up to the second head's 135MHz max.

You really need to recheck the monitor types you have selected as being connected to the 2 heads. PowerDesk is exceptionally flexible, but unless you've used the Matrox monitor wizard, the Windows monitor inf files you are using will set the ceiling on the maximum resolution and refresh rates you can use in PD.

**jeroen** · 18 October 1999, 01:17

OK i'll try 1280x720 thanks.

About the monitor type, i used the latest .inf file from NEC. I had to setup the monitor as a windows monitor because the fp-950 isn't listed in PD. Under display properties it says 'NEC MultiSync FP950 on Matrox Millenium G400 DualHead - English'.

But i don't recall seeing seperate monitor settings for the 2nd head. The projector should be able to handle all resolutions and refresh rates of the NEC monitor so it would be eassiest to use the same .inf file.

**KvHagedorn** · 18 October 1999, 01:26

Jeroen: My rant refers to the 99.9% of people who just play DVDs on their computers because they think it's just as good as hardware decompression. Most of these people are just using raw CPU power and software to decode mpeg2. Now that hardware cards are becoming available to do this, yes, you can do better than a normal consumer DVD player. It wasn't meant specifically to target you. Most people are not so thoroughly immersed in the technology (as you are) to understand the difference.

Progressive scanning has its own difficulties which require a much higher scan rate than any normal television equipment can produce, but with hdtv to spur things on, we are finally seeing some of this equipment make its way into consumer channels. But the average guy still does not have this equipment, and doesn't know the difference. This type of consumer is better off with a DVD player and a good hdtv-compatible television with a good built-in line doubler. The prospect of anyone who is not a technically proficient enthusiast doing what you have done is practically nil.

Please pardon my tone, but when you have dealt with these masses who want to purchase a $999.99 Celeron box and then sit in front of their 15" monitor and watch movies decoded in software, you realize that most people need the simplest route to good quality audio and video. That is still a regular ntsc DVD player that they can plug into their tv/stereo setup.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

**jeroen** · 18 October 1999, 02:40

Hi,

i understand your rant a little better now. I agree, most people are better of with just a stand-alone player to hook up to their tv. The picture quality of pc-based dvd on a regular tv looks inferior to that of most if not all stand-alone players. Add to that all the potential problems of running dvd from a windows box and it doesn't take a genius to realize it isn't worth it.

However i don't agree with you about raw cpu power not being good enough for dvd playback. I tried both windvd and cinemaster on a modest celeron 466 with a g400 and playback is fine up to 1280x1024x32: no picture break-up or motion judder whatsoever. Strangely enough the same thing can't be said for the leadtek s800 with mpact 2 HARDWARE decoder: anything higher than 800x600x24 and the picture will stutter during fast camera pans. This isn't very important since 720x480 is the prefered resolution for dvd playback anyway, but still.

Personally, i'm waiting for the day true progressive scan stand-alone players hit the market. If the price is reasonable i'd get one in a second and get rid of all the pc junk in my home theater even faster. Well maybe i'd keep my g400/v2sli combo for playing games on the big screen, but for dvd i want a reliable, quiet, plug and play type system. Until then i have no choice but to keep using the pc to get the best picture quality i can afford.

Cheers,
jeroen.

**franksch3** · 18 October 1999, 03:07

Hi KvHagedorn,

I recently tried playing DVDs with my G400 and the image quality on TV is precisely the same as the standalone player of a friend of mine produces.

I don't really believe that a standalone player can produce a better image from the same data. And a Pentium II 400 MHz is fast enough to decode the DVD stream without any hickups.

**Diddl** · 18 October 1999, 15:00

Another benefit of PC-based DVD playback is the simple 'firmware' upgrade. Many of those who bought a nice standalone player were probably a little bit pissed when they tried to watch The Matrix. And this is only the beginning of DVD. Even more advanced special effects are yet to come.

Jeroen, If I'am correct you have hooked up your projector as second monitor. What dualhead mode do you use to get the DVD on the projector: Zoom, clone, or dvdmax?

**Himself** · 18 October 1999, 16:06

KvHagedorn,

Your first point was ok, if you have the bucks, why not get a player? You migrated from that to why doesn't everybody get a DVD player.

For me, $140 CDN is a lot easier on the wallet than >$500 CDN. As for software vs decoder card, I thought I'd try software first and if that's not up to snuff I'd pick up a decoder card for $80 CDN. Don't forget that DVD-ROMs can be used for more than just playing movies, it's a no brainer to buy one instead of a player if you are price conscious, IMO. If money grows on trees in your backyard, sure, buy a player.

**KvHagedorn** · 18 October 1999, 23:49

I wanna get a dvd drive now that I have a MAX and a P3-600. Prob a card for it too.. I am sure the Matrox does much better than the ATIs Ive seen play them. But it still prob wont be the player I use for watching movies seriously. I knew someone whose primary use for his $4000 laptop was watching movies on the plane. When you look at it that way, $4000 is quite a lot to spend for a DVD player.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

Announcement

dualhead useless for my home theater setup?

dualhead useless for my home theater setup?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment