How does Intel HD Graphics perform with the 29/59 issue?
-
DOS4EVER
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 1:24 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
How does Intel HD Graphics perform with the 29/59 issue?
Thinking of upgrading my HTPC and the one I have in sight has an Intel Celeron 2957U CPU with integrated graphics. I know about the Dynamic Contrast setting, but I need to know if there is any video stutter with this chip. Thanks.
-
adam1991
- Posts: 2893
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:31 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
it's not a bug, people...if it's happening, it's by design of the content provider.
-
Scallica
- Posts: 2799
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:09 pm
- Location: USA!
-
HTPC Specs:
I agree; thread title changed. The 29/59 issue is caused by incorrect metadata; it's not a 'bug'.adam1991 wrote:it's not a bug, people...if it's happening, it's by design of the content provider.
http://www.thegreenbutton.tv/wiki/index ... Rate_Issue
HTPC Enthusiast / Forum Moderator - TGB.tv Code of Conduct
-
Space
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:44 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
I'm going to continue calling it a bug.
Switching between a 29 and 59 frame rate (or interlaced/progressive) should not cause all those problems (interlacing artifacts, turning on/off enhanced features leading to flashing, skipped/delayed frames) so it should be considered a bug. STB's seem to not have a problem with this content, so why should WMC? You could argue that the STBs are using workarounds, but it they are this means it is common enough that it should be implemented by all players and should be considered a bug if not implemented.
Also, the encoding from the provider is "wrong" or at least NOT intentional or by design. It's just a result of faulty encoding. So that can also be considered a bug.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if it is considered a bug or not, and OPs original question still remains unanswered...
Switching between a 29 and 59 frame rate (or interlaced/progressive) should not cause all those problems (interlacing artifacts, turning on/off enhanced features leading to flashing, skipped/delayed frames) so it should be considered a bug. STB's seem to not have a problem with this content, so why should WMC? You could argue that the STBs are using workarounds, but it they are this means it is common enough that it should be implemented by all players and should be considered a bug if not implemented.
Also, the encoding from the provider is "wrong" or at least NOT intentional or by design. It's just a result of faulty encoding. So that can also be considered a bug.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if it is considered a bug or not, and OPs original question still remains unanswered...
-
adam1991
- Posts: 2893
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:31 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Disagree. If anything, I want a system that is able to honor exactly the content that's sent to it--and doesn't display what it autonomously "thinks" it wants to display.
The fact that in one instance it's able to mask an unwanted artifact of that data, might mean that in another instance it's actually masking wanted parts of the data--and that's unacceptable.
If switching is a bug, it's in the actions of those who encode and deliver the content--not in the hardware that simply and passively records the content to disk and accurately plays it back.
Garbage in, garbage out.
The point is, from the standpoint of the display hardware the encoding is, by definition, whatever the provider intended--and should not be mucked with, autonomously, by same said display hardware. On the other hand, you want the display hardware to read your mind and give you what you want at any given moment. (I know how this works; I work in an industry where demand for "give me what I want, not what I asked for!" is more common than not. Welcome to humans.)
Me, I will happily trade off having an accurate system even if it means showing me the garbage that the world is made up of, thanks to the actions of clueless and ignorant people. Worst case, I want to have very specifically to tell the display hardware to "please misbehave in this very specific manner", rather than just do whatever it wants without my specific direction.
I could also decide I want to call a car a "fromjin," I guess. I mean, if it's just a free-for-all, do and say whatever I want world.
The fact that in one instance it's able to mask an unwanted artifact of that data, might mean that in another instance it's actually masking wanted parts of the data--and that's unacceptable.
If switching is a bug, it's in the actions of those who encode and deliver the content--not in the hardware that simply and passively records the content to disk and accurately plays it back.
Garbage in, garbage out.
The point is, from the standpoint of the display hardware the encoding is, by definition, whatever the provider intended--and should not be mucked with, autonomously, by same said display hardware. On the other hand, you want the display hardware to read your mind and give you what you want at any given moment. (I know how this works; I work in an industry where demand for "give me what I want, not what I asked for!" is more common than not. Welcome to humans.)
Me, I will happily trade off having an accurate system even if it means showing me the garbage that the world is made up of, thanks to the actions of clueless and ignorant people. Worst case, I want to have very specifically to tell the display hardware to "please misbehave in this very specific manner", rather than just do whatever it wants without my specific direction.
I could also decide I want to call a car a "fromjin," I guess. I mean, if it's just a free-for-all, do and say whatever I want world.
-
webminster
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:05 pm
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Semantics, all. call it an "issue" or a "bug"... but when you turn on Cinemax and it's unwatchable, because of the 29/59 insert-term-here... one can say the software is not performing to reasonable expectations. Some call that a bug. In the end, I can't change where up-stream the lunacy is introduced,
OP - a real quick Google didn't say what version of "Intel HD graphics" for that chip. I've heard people had good luck with the HD4000 and the DC settings. I have an Intel here with HD4600 GPU... when I tried that with the drivers of a year ago, it was unwatchable even with DC disabled (others had similar issues at the time and no resolution). Don't know if that's changed, I switched to a GTX 750 and moved on.
Others are reporting issues with protected content on MPEG4 cable content now... may be a consideration if you use premium channels on Comcast. I guess I learned the hard way a long time ago, it's useful to build in a way to allow for replacing the GPU in case circumstances don't work out.
OP - a real quick Google didn't say what version of "Intel HD graphics" for that chip. I've heard people had good luck with the HD4000 and the DC settings. I have an Intel here with HD4600 GPU... when I tried that with the drivers of a year ago, it was unwatchable even with DC disabled (others had similar issues at the time and no resolution). Don't know if that's changed, I switched to a GTX 750 and moved on.
Others are reporting issues with protected content on MPEG4 cable content now... may be a consideration if you use premium channels on Comcast. I guess I learned the hard way a long time ago, it's useful to build in a way to allow for replacing the GPU in case circumstances don't work out.
-Alan
-
Doctor Feelgood
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:37 pm
- Location: NJ
-
HTPC Specs:
I have not used that exact chip (which has the base "HD" graphics) - but all of my Media Center systems have used Intel HD graphics in some form (from the base HD through HD4000) in the last several years... Celerons / Pentiums / i3 / i5 / i7... I have not experienced an issue with playback in Media Center on any channel that switching Dynamic Contrast didn't fix. For reference I have Cablevision cable, and a pair of HD Homerun Primes.
-
DOS4EVER
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 1:24 am
- Location:
-
HTPC Specs:
Thanks for the responses.