Originally Posted by madshi
, I don't know.
That's too bad. But thanks anyway. Onkyoman wrote:
> Video RAM of 4GB may be necessary for 4K UHD playback, while 2GB of RAM is suitable for 1080p screens.
and it would be nice if, 10 months later, we had a bit better guidance than that. An even more pessimistic viewpoint might be that if 2GB is required to support 1080p, then 4K may demand 8GB (4x as much) to achieve the same results. I do know that those pushing madVR to the max are using GTX 1080 cards, with 8GB of VRAM. What I don't know is how much is actually required.
, the TVs might be better now than they were in the past, but according to all the feedback I've received, madVR still has noticeably higher upscaling quality. I haven't really done much comparisons vs TV build in upscaling myself, though. But considering how complex my upscaling algos are, I would be surprised if TVs could compete.
To follow up on this a bit, madVR still has better upscaling quality than the newest 4K TV's. Even the best can't compete. Which really isn't surprising, since that's not their goal.
That said, they may not have to.
It all depends on the situation, which is different in every configuration. If you're viewing a moderately large 5-ft wide 4K screen from 14' away, with cable-quality source material, you may not see any discernible difference at all. OTOH, if you're viewing a 9' wide projected image from just 10' away, sourced from a good Blu-ray, every tiny detail will be revealed. Which is what makes madVR such a big win, and justifies setting up a custom HTPC to run it.
Considering that madshi has made madVR available at no $ cost, and continues to support and enhance it, the only 'expense' involved is the (modest) learning curve to use it most effectively (and a vidcard that can support it). We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his efforts, and his generosity.
So let me say, thanks madshi for creating such a phenomenal piece of software engineering, and Happy New Year!