• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Fluid Motion "Enable 60fps Movies"

andybird123 said:
I think you are getting confused between frame insertion and frame interpolation, according to the AMD website you need the plugin to enable interpolation... it still doesn't make interpolation a good thing
Click to expand...

Maybe not a good thing to you :) but hay we can all never agree. Some will love it some will hate it.
 
layte said:
I got perma banned from the What HiFi forums for using science to prove to their reviews editor that the price of HDMI cables makes no difference to the picture.
Click to expand...
I guess you argue that HDMI cables don't make any difference because they are "just sending the 1s and 0s data" right?

Well hate to say this, but it is like people saying 120Hz panels make no difference comparing to 60Hz panel because "science" says human-eyes cannot perceive it, but real-world testing suggest otherwise, as people can tell the difference doing blind tests.

HDMI cables wouldn't make much if any noticable difference in average usage such as 1 to 1.5 metres in length; it is when using longer cables that the difference of better quality cable will become apparently better than bog-standard HDMI cable (whether or not cable manufacturers charging a fortunate for their cable or are the high cable pricings justified though is a seperate story/discussion).
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
I guess you argue that HDMI cables don't make any difference because they are "just sending the 1s and 0s data" right?

Well hate to say this, but it is like people saying 120Hz panels make no difference comparing to 60Hz panel because "science" says human-eyes cannot perceive it, but real-world testing suggest otherwise, as people can tell the difference doing blind tests.

HDMI cables wouldn't make much if any noticable difference in average usage such as 1 to 1.5 metres in length; it is when using longer cables that the difference of better quality cable will become apparently better than bog-standard HDMI cable (whether or not cable manufacturers charging a fortunate for their cable or are the high cable pricings justified though is a seperate story/discussion).
Click to expand...

Or I could have used a study which generated check sums from a range of different cables ranging from cheap and cheerful to full on audiophile crazy prices. All of said checksums were identical. The What HiFi editor did not take kindly to this. And started going on about how just sending a static image 60 times a second was completely different to sending a 60fps video signal, and other nonsense like wider soundstage and deeper colours.

Sadly it's all lost to time, but Digital Foundry did a similar test with a range of HDMI cables. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi

Cable snakeoil salesmen and their press lackies need to be slapped for the crap they pull.
 
Last edited:
LambChop said:
Ok..

But their testing method is not what they are testing but the readings from each cable, the source should be irrelevant as long as its the same source for all cables.
Click to expand...

The problem is the ps3 actually outputs a crap image in the first place, a crap image can be lower bandwidth, so hooking up a good quality source is key to testing potential degradation

There is also the possibility that what works for 1080p might not still be true for 4K
 
Last edited:
LambChop said:
Ok..

But their testing method is not what they are testing but the readings from each cable, the source should be irrelevant as long as its the same source for all cables.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The What HiFi dude then had to run damage control on the results as they have advertisers and sponsors to keep sweet.
 
Rossi~ said:
Meehhhhhhh.
Trying to get higher frames per second without extra original frames, kinda like trying to polish a ****.
Click to expand...

Yeah agreed

Cyanide said:
Movies should be 23.976 FPS :(
Click to expand...

Why? Arbitrary technical limitations are not a good thing. Yes, higher framerates can look worse - using all the other techniques set up for 24fps without thought. If a director wants blur they can add it, at any framerate. To be forced by the tech because some people fear change is garbage. Soap-opera effect is not a result of higher framerate but of poor film making.
 
andybird123 said:
The problem is the ps3 actually outputs a crap image in the first place, a crap image can be lower bandwidth, so hooking up a good quality source is key to testing potential degradation

There is also the possibility that what works for 1080p might not still be true for 4K
Click to expand...

Luckily they used an original fat PS3 which sends an unmolested signal from the framebuffer over HDMI.
 
andybird123 said:
The problem is the ps3 actually outputs a crap image in the first place, a crap image can be lower bandwidth, so hooking up a good quality source is key to testing potential degradation
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I thought it is something obvious that require no explanation, but apparently not...

It's like for proper testing and comparison between audio quality, nobody would do the comparison using mp3...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom