Computer Reviews and Computer Products – Computer Shopper
Computer Shopper > Reviews > Miscellaneous Editorial Content


Search:
Go!


Alpha Blog: CNET's gadget & tech news and opinions blogged by our editors
November 22, 2006, 10:53 AM PST
Nvidia's PureVideo HD: Mostly pretty OK HD decoding
Posted by: Rich Brown

If the PureVideo high-definition test system that Nvidia sent us is any indication, you're going to need a fairly beefy PC to play HD video. Ours came in a SilverStone small-form-factor case and included an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 CPU, a GeForce 7600 GT graphics card (complete with an HDMI output and HDCP compliance), an HD-DVD drive, and 1GB of DDR2 SDRAM. HP sells just such a system in the form of its Pavilion m7690n Media Center PC TV, which you can get for $1,650 with no extras. We have one in our lab right now, in fact, and we'll post our review of it next week.

Specs aside, Nvidia sent us this box to take a look at PureVideo HD, the decoding software that helps complete the PC's end of the HDCP chain. Having a "secure" system won't be an issue until roughly 2010, when Hollywood may or may not kick in the copy-protection technology that will "down-res" HD movies when you play them on unapproved hardware, but it's nice to have that box checked early. Perhaps more importantly, when you play a Blu-ray or HD-DVD movie, PureVideo HD will help the graphics card, Windows, and your HD movie player software to communicate, ideally ensuring an optimal HD movie-watching experience.

To get an idea of what this experience looks like, we plugged Nvidia's test box via an HDMI cable into the highly rated Sony KDS-R60XBR2 60-inch television. Coming fresh off of its November 11 review, we chose that TV because it was handy, but also because it'll do HD resolutions up to 1080p, and we already had its image-quality settings set. Even after eliminating the television as a source of any trouble, we still found mixed results.

We were happy to see that Nvidia's drivers recognized our television and autoset the screen to 1080p resolution. Nvidia's software includes a few easy-to-use tools for calibrating RGB color accuracy and brightness. It took some tweaking, but eventually we were happy with the color temperature and other settings. One drawback we found is that any changes you make to the video don't show up on the fly. You have to close whatever you're watching and restart it for any adjustments to kick in, making the process overly cumbersome. This lack of real-time feedback has always been an issue with PC video, though, so it's nothing new.

In terms of actual movie playback, we were generally pleased with 1080p and 720p. We used Swordfish and The Last Samurai as our test discs, and we compared them against output from a standard HD-DVD player. On the Nvidia system, we noticed some false contouring (distinct lines appear where gradients of color should transition smoothly), fewer fine details in shadowy areas, and some noticeably choppy frames during some more difficult pans, but at no time did we feel like were we utterly disappointed in the quality. We still saw much of what we've come to expect from HD video, things such as individual stubble hair and crisp background details, and the frame rates generally kept up.

The 1080i output was a different story. For some reason, Nvidia's test system wouldn't stay at 1080i on the Sony 60-incher. When we set that resolution in the drivers, it kept bouncing back up to 1080p. To eliminate the problem, we connected the PC to our Sony KD-34XBR960, an older, Editors' Choice-winning, 34-inch direct-view CRT that will only go as high as 1080i. When we finally got 1080i output to stick, all of the issues we noticed at 1080p were magnified: The contouring was terrible, diagonal lines were covered in shimmery moire effects, jagged edges marred both the foreground and the background, and the slight stutter we saw during certain scenes became much more pronounced. We're not sure whether the video card or PureVideoHD itself is to blame, but the result is that 1080i looks significantly worse than either 720p or 1080p. Early adopters who want an HD television and can't wait for 1080p to become more prevalent will feel this problem the most.

For progressive output, at least, we're mostly happy with PureVideo HD and the system that Nvidia sent us. We haven't had the opportunity to test an HD drive-equipped PC that has AMD/ATI's Avivo video-decoding technology, so we can't say what the PC competition is like. What we can say is that while a living room PC remains inferior to standard home theater components in terms of movie-image quality and general ease of use, Nvidia's PureVideo HD gets the quality part rather close on progressive content.


TalkBack
3 messages

Some of the most terrible reviews ever

OK, I'm sure this post will be deleted but here goes:

1) Colorspace is made up of various driving levels for each of the three primary colors (R)(G)(B)

Given 256 Driving (or luminance) levels of each of these three colors results in aprox 16.77 million colors.

Any 'Calibration' done in this limited colorspace will result in a DRASTIC reduction in image quality.

Luminance values for Driving levels are static, so a calibration simply hops skips and jumps over a portion of the pallet.

The more drastic the change, the more levels that are lost.

If you were to reduce 256x256x256 to say: 222x222x222 you would lose around 35% of your dynamic range resulting in increased banding and poor color detail. Almost 5 million colors variations now gone.

Back to the review:

nVIDIA's software includes a few easy-to-use tools for calibrating RGB color accuracy and brightness. It took some tweaking, but eventually we were happy with the color temperature and other settings. One drawback we found is that any changes you make to the video don't show up on the fly.

Output from the Computer is Digital, why on earth would you calibrate the color on the perfect digital output? If anything, this should be done on the MONITOR. Any half decent monitor will not corrupt the colorspace table or lose driving levels and or shades.

Furthermore a few other terrible points made in this review are as follows:

and some noticeably choppy frames during some more difficult pans, but at no time did we feel like were we utterly disappointed in the quality. We still saw much of what we've come to expect from HD video

Uhm, yeah, sorry to say this, but the choppy frames are not a result of poor processing power as the author would have you believe but rather the way the shot was filmed in the first place.

Poor cameras (or poorly controlled cameras) are not going to adjust the video aperture on the fly perfectly. A fast shutter speed, (say 1/5000th) capturing at 24 or even 30 frames per second is going to OF COURSE JITTER when the field pans, how wouldn't it?!?! The reason certain scenes are smooth during this same transition isn't due to poor playback hardware but rather lower shutter speeds, e.g. a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second for a 30fps shot, or 1/24th of a second for a 24fps shot will yield PERFECTLY SMOOTH PANS!

As a final note to Rich Brown, perhaps you should review things that are more subjective such as art and leave technology reviews to someone better suited.
by Andy0x1 (See profile) - January 16, 2007 1:41 PM PST
20 out of 20 users found this comment helpful

TV not PC???

I think you mean "that TV" instead of "that PC"

...Coming fresh off of its November 11 review, we chose that PC because it was handy, but also because it'll do HD resolutions up to 1080p...
by afingret (See profile) - November 23, 2006 3:41 PM PST

November 2006 archive

S M Tu W Th F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30

for Alpha.CNET.com

advertisement

 
advertisement

Popular on CBS sites: Fantasy Football | Miley Cyrus | MLB | Wii | GPS | Recipes | Mock Draft


© 2008 CNET Networks, Inc., a CBS Company. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use