(2014-11-29, 17:23)noggin Wrote: You are right, it would be good if there were an optional, "Match resolution" as well as "Match Framerate" option. It could be quite complex to implement though - as so much video has non-standard resolutions (where black bars have been cropped for instance). However you could do a bit of an "educated guess" system - and let people check box at what resolution they wanted XBMC to stop scaling?

You could have different settings for "SD" (i.e. content with a horizontal resolution of 1024 or lower?), "720p" (i.e. content with horizontal resolution >1024 but <=1280), "1080" (i.e. content with a horizontal resolution >1280 but <=1920), "Above HD" (i.e. content with a horizontal resolution >1920)? Then you could have "Output at" options for these four genres (So you could chose to output "SD" as 1080p, "720p" as 720p, "1080" as 1080p but "Above HD" as 2160p?)

(2014-11-30, 01:59)Sunflux Wrote:

(2014-11-29, 17:23)noggin Wrote: You are right, it would be good if there were an optional, "Match resolution" as well as "Match Framerate" option. It could be quite complex to implement though - as so much video has non-standard resolutions (where black bars have been cropped for instance). However you could do a bit of an "educated guess" system - and let people check box at what resolution they wanted XBMC to stop scaling?

You could have different settings for "SD" (i.e. content with a horizontal resolution of 1024 or lower?), "720p" (i.e. content with horizontal resolution >1024 but <=1280), "1080" (i.e. content with a horizontal resolution >1280 but <=1920), "Above HD" (i.e. content with a horizontal resolution >1920)? Then you could have "Output at" options for these four genres (So you could chose to output "SD" as 1080p, "720p" as 720p, "1080" as 1080p but "Above HD" as 2160p?)

I know in researching this the XBMC developers have extolled the difficulties of implementing such a system too due to abnormal video sizes, but as you point out, all it really needs is some good forethought put into what to do with what. Have separate settings for SD/480p, 720, 1920 and 4K that can be enabled or disabled (so if you don't enable SD/480p and 720 they're merely scaled to the first enabled one, 1920), do your matching based on vertical or horizontal resolution (to cover things like 1440x1080p or 1920x800p), and after selecting a resolution, match the refresh rate.

About the trickiest part in my mind is dealing with non-square PAR, so you'd probably have to calculate the "effective resolution" first.

Frankly, I'd be happy with a crude patch that just allowed for "whatever's stock" and "UHD/2160" modes.

(2014-11-30, 02:15)noggin Wrote: Yes - it isn't perfectly straightforward but with some intelligent rules based on horizontal and vertical resolutions AFTER PAR has been taken into account (i.e. equivalent square pixel resolution) you can cope with most things with a couple of rules.

You'd need to cope with 1080p stuff that is very cropped to cinemascope and could have less than 720 lines - but as it has a horizontal size >1280 you could separate it from 720p. Another possibility is a 1440x1080 16:9 non-square HD source that contained a 4:3 pillbox picture so was cropped to 1080x1080 4:3 non-square, and thus had a horizontal size <1280 but as it has a vertical size >720 you can still separate it from 720p content.

SD is probably the hardest to handle - as you have 576i/p and 480i/p outputs to cope with and some interaction between resolution and frame rate to consider. To be honest I'd probably leave content <720p to be upscaled permanently (but that's a personal choice).

I'd prefer to avoid the crude patch - as it would be great to solve the "double scaling" of 720/50p content issue whilst still being able to play 1080p content at full resolution (and without having to change output formats in settings between files)

(2014-11-30, 03:16)Sunflux Wrote:

(2014-11-30, 02:15)noggin Wrote: Yes - it isn't perfectly straightforward but with some intelligent rules based on horizontal and vertical resolutions AFTER PAR has been taken into account (i.e. equivalent square pixel resolution) you can cope with most things with a couple of rules.

You'd need to cope with 1080p stuff that is very cropped to cinemascope and could have less than 720 lines - but as it has a horizontal size >1280 you could separate it from 720p. Another possibility is a 1440x1080 16:9 non-square HD source that contained a 4:3 pillbox picture so was cropped to 1080x1080 4:3 non-square, and thus had a horizontal size <1280 but as it has a vertical size >720 you can still separate it from 720p content.

SD is probably the hardest to handle - as you have 576i/p and 480i/p outputs to cope with and some interaction between resolution and frame rate to consider. To be honest I'd probably leave content <720p to be upscaled permanently (but that's a personal choice).

I'd prefer to avoid the crude patch - as it would be great to solve the "double scaling" of 720/50p content issue whilst still being able to play 1080p content at full resolution (and without having to change output formats in settings between files)

Yeah, I do agree it's probably okay to resample anything <720p up to 720p. Would eliminate a lot of hassle in dealing with a myriad of NTSC/PAL formats. It would definitely be nice to avoid unneeded resampling of 720p -> 1080p and 720p/1080p -> 2160p, though. The problem is, I don't think this is going to be a dev priority until a bunch of them get 4K televisions of their own and realize how crap the current operation is. :-)

(2014-11-30, 03:24)noggin Wrote: SD -> 1080p (Allows 50/60i to 50/60p 2x deinterlace), 720p would probably also be OK (but suspect that will depend on how good the XBMC scaling is)
720p -> 720p (Allows 50/60p and leaves all the scaling to the TV as XBMC could only scale to 1080p and still output 50p/60p, as scaling to 2160p would mean 25p/30p output and halve the frame rate on native 50/60p content)
1080i/p -> 1080p (Again allows 50/60i and 50/60p content to be output at full frame rate)
2160p -> 2160p

(2014-11-30, 01:37)LilSnoop40 Wrote: Hi, I just got a chromebox today's showed up early. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, I booted to developer mode. When I do ctrl-alt-f2 I see the black command screen flicker then goes to where it's asking for my login in on the chrome os.. Please help would like to do a stand alone openelec install.

Thanks

(2014-11-30, 05:41)MrCrispy Wrote: I ordered a Fire TV stick for $20. I'm assuming the included remote will work fine with OpenElec on Chromebox since its just a regular HID device? It's a barebones remote and doesn't have too many buttons but I'm guessing its probably enough for XBMC? Would like to hear any thoughts on this vs getting one of the other suggested remotes like MCE or PS3.