Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: OpenCL 1.1 Specification Released

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I haven't actually seen any shader-assisted H.264 decode implementations in public yet, have you ?

    It's very common to use shaders for render aka presentation (scaling, colour space conversion, post processing etc...) but I haven't seen anything that does MC, deblock and loop filtering on shaders and everything further upstream on CPU.
    "I haven't actually seen any shader-assisted H.264 decode implementations in public yet, have you ? "

    sure? radeon HD2900 aka pure R600 do not have a UVD unit...

    the HD2900 is the pure SHADER based decode implementation in public !

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    D'oh !!

    Good point, I'll check into that. Thanks !

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    D'oh !!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    Yeah, like that...

    ... although I have more hair.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    D'oh !!
    Good point, I'll check into that. Thanks !
    "I'll check into that."

    means this bridgman openup the r600 h264 shader part of the catalyst driver?

    yes amd can't spec the UVD unit but amd can release the sourcecode of the R600-shader-based-h264 video acceleration

    ;-) gogogogo bridgman openup the code

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    s/gogogogogo/nononono/

    There was a discussion going on about whether hardware-based decoding (eg UVD) produced higher quality than CPU-based decoding. My position was that the quality would generally be the same, and that it was processing further downstream (but before Xv/GL) that made the difference.

    Put differently, I was saying that the apparent quality difference between UVD decode and CPU decode was that the proprietary drivers, which typically had the serious post-processing, also used hardware decode since it was available to the developers.

    The post processing is considered "secret sauce" and it's highly unlikely we would open up that code. On the other hand, implementing it just requires video knowledge not any more hardware knowledge than we have already released, so there's no reason something similar could not be implemented in the open drivers.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,386

    Default

    Anyways, bottom line here is that running an r600 against a UVD-based GPU (say an rv670 to keep everything else reasonably close) on Windows *might* be an interesting way to see whether UVD actually contributes to video quality the way that some people are suggesting.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    On the other hand, implementing it just requires video knowledge not any more hardware knowledge than we have already released, so there's no reason something similar could not be implemented in the open drivers.
    yes there is NO "reason something similar could not be implemented in the open drivers."

    but it costs money and manpower and that point brings me to another point of view...

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The post processing is considered "secret sauce" and it's highly unlikely we would open up that code.
    yes "sauce" like Tomato sauce

    its really sauce because its pointless!

    if you build an opensource version of this 'secret' 'source-code' based on the spec the code does exact the same!

    means there is no 'Secret'

    its just do the same work again for the same and costs money and manpower!


    means AMD just lost 'Money' if they don't touch the pointless Secret HoT-Pepper Tomato Sauce



    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    s/gogogogogo/nononono/
    oh nooooooooooooooooooooooo the lawyer kills the opensource driver for an pointless move of special burning Money action

    call the fire-fighters..


    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    There was a discussion going on about whether hardware-based decoding (eg UVD) produced higher quality than CPU-based decoding. My position was that the quality would generally be the same, and that it was processing further downstream (but before Xv/GL) that made the difference.

    Put differently, I was saying that the apparent quality difference between UVD decode and CPU decode was that the proprietary drivers, which typically had the serious post-processing, also used hardware decode since it was available to the developers.
    yes if you do the same post-processing the cpu based sould have the same quality

    but in my point of view a cpu can have more quality--> Vector-based-movement-detect-super_sampling

    you can rendering a 1920x1200 pixel 24fps viedeo @ 4000x2000 pixels and calculate movement detect upsamling to 60fps based on Vectors and then downsampling to the 1920X1200 monitor resolution

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I haven't actually seen any shader-assisted H.264 decode implementations in public yet, have you ?
    There is also a shader based implementation for the Xbox 360's Xenos gpu.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,995

    Default

    Bridgman, I think that would make a lot of sense. If AMD opened up the shader code for R600 (feel free to remove post-processing), it would be another big sweep of good FOSS PR.

    Surely it would also be rather fast for a qualified dev to remove any secret post-processing; sure, there's bound to be a legal review after that, but for shader code it should be lighter than for actual specs.
    Much faster than writing one from ground-up, to be sure

    Could you tell whether it's in a standard spec (GLSL, OpenCL...) or in something ATI-specific? Even if it only ran on R600+ gpus, it would make a great headline, wink wink.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •