|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 11:24 AM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
so, what was expected?
that mpeg will let ms bite some of it's cake like it's nobody's business?
(that's the explanation of this
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?a...icleID=50500181 )
wilbert says "What's bad about this?" (what's bad about ms being kicked out);
let me tell you wilbert, what's bad; it means mpeg gets all the licensing and you can't choose another codec type for the content.
for sure, it's better to have at least SOME choice over NO-CHOICE.
mpeg codecs mean no-choice.
if you have found mpeg choice to be inadeqaute for you, then you're not a happy camper.
also, h264 should be a codec that's harder to encode to/decode from.(a slower codec)
and we all know hardware encoders are still crap even for mpeg2, which is old standard by any merit.
this also means i can watch (on PC) one resolution of wmv9 but i can't do the same res of h264: and will i buy the fastest cpu on earth to be able to do h264 properly?
you know me, i'm cheap. 
(in other words if wmv9 is too slow for me, i'm too scared to even think about h264)
tommy carrot said;
| QUOTE | | Or it would just increase the cost and the confusion. H.264 has undoubtedly superior quality to WMV9, so i cannot see any point to include VC-1 in the specs. |
but is he just one of those who don't use wmv9/don't know how to use it?
where is the proof for these words?
while dragongodz said;
| QUOTE | | if you need proof then look at wmv9(which is what vc-1 is based on, so i assume pretty much the same algoriths) compared to the immature H.264 encoders being worked on. |
how do you do that?
where is a nice h264 codec to try?
there is no h264!
(don't make me post some mencoder h264 clips next to wmv9, because someone might get embarrassed, and it won't be the microsoft!)
while wmencoder9 is 1995-2002(copyright:microsoft corporation) and anyone can try it, because it's a freeware! is everbody failing to understand that ms is offering best lo-bitrate video codecs always as freeware?
but let's stop discussing politics already (but do remember that ms codec is a cheaper one to make and license! and that encoder is a freeware, so there will be no paying for tmpgenc ,cce or simillar crap;you'll just use wmencoder+some hd-dvd/bluray burning software...but ,then again i may ask "where is hdtv anyway...not in europe it's not!") and let's try to see what codec is better;
i took player and a sample from here
http://www.avc-alliance.org/downloads.htm
i made simple directshowsource script, and encoded via wmv9-vcm (ie to .avi, so it means no b-frames of wmv/asf container) to same (or a bit less ) bitrate as the source h264 stream: now, can anyone convince me that h264 is better than wmv9?
http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv..._wmv9.part1.rar
http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv..._wmv9.part2.rar
http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv..._wmv9.part3.rar
http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv..._wmv9.part4.rar
http://s92912755.onlinehome.us/h264_to_wmv..._wmv9.part5.rar
total filesize = 4,48MB
(sorry for inconvenience of multivolume .rar, but it's more safe for me to upload it this way...i don't wanna upload 4mb just to find out connection broke down few minutes from finishing)
try a blind test (no resizing , as avc dshow seems to broken if resizing is applied) with few people: how many of them differentiated the two?
and then, remember that this is only the reencoding after all; so wmv9 is crippled, and yet it looks fine.
notice that even this "official" avs dshow decoder is broken (as i said "there is no h264 to use!"); it doesn't initialize overlay as soon as you resize window (at least it doesn't do it on my machine) and search is impossible-duration shows some silly numbers etc.
player is a laugh too!
now compare this to ms decoder and player.
also, watch the cpu usage on decoding the both clips.
even when avc is ok (ie not cpu 100% because of failed overlay) it's much more complex to decode.
my wmv9-vcm clip is not ideal at all; it is 1pass CBR encoding.
is this yet another discussion where some people will never agree?
i couldn't care less; i just wanted to post my reencodings and stop this crap where everybody that never tried wmv9 says it's crap, based on doom9 tests on medium bitrates; wmv9 is not excellent medium or a high bitrate codec. it is excellent low bitrate codec.
there is no codec that performas well on all bitrates.
i would like to ask someone (fcc or wilbert, i guess) to link this test to doom9 thread; let me see if someone can really prove h264 (which one? ) is superior to wmv9 as sure as hell avc-alliance didn't succeed.
to finish this off, i'd like to link this post
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?...31#816004956631
replace "Steve Jobs" and "Apple" with "mpeg"...
mpeg is a consortium that is making big money on licensing mpeg's, remember that.
microsoft is just looking what's happening at mpeg (as it is a part of it too) and taking the goodies and then offering them for free...
please remember; i can't say which codec is better, as there is no h264 yet.
i'm surprised to see some of doom9 forum members can: i wish i had their crystal-ball.
so it is a batle of one codec against non-existant codec, where non-existant codec wins.
look at the bond's lil list;
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?post...decs#post461589
(look under the table of avs versus mpeg4pt2 features)
but there is none.
/ivo
--------------------
my signature:
 |
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 03:16 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Well, I donīt know the WMV9 encoder - so I wonīt say how good/bad it is. I do say though that I wonīt use it, out of dislike for MS.
As for the topic, I think Iīd be rather glad if MS were out of the game, even if it meant that another company is without competition. I donīt trust MS, and Iīm sure theyīd soon ruin it to their advantage.
While in general Iīd agree with the "some choice is better than no choice", I think that when MS is in the game, "no choice is better than a choice with MS".
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 06:29 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
can you explain why do you hate ms?
i bet you can't.
or, why do you hate a company providing the best free codecs, while you like company (companies) forcing us to pay for mpeg2/4?
in essence i didn't asked you to tell me about your feelings towards ms, but to tell me if you know of a better lo-bitrate encoder at this time.
if not, then you must admit ms's stuff is leading the way.
http://virtualdub.everwicked.com/index.php...t=0&#entry30426
are you too a windows user that attacks ms?
i don't understand such behaviour.
it is beyond me.
if ms is an evil demon, i'll be sure to burn in hell with them; fcc will be there too.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 06:47 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | can you explain why do you hate ms?
i bet you can't. |
I think I can. Their programs are junk, most of the time. They sell buggy software and claim itīs the users fault for not constantly updating.
They try to take every option from the user, forcing a zombie-like attitude, telling users they donīt have to think when using a computer.
| QUOTE | | or, why do you hate a company providing the best free codecs, while you like company (companies) forcing us to pay for mpeg2/4? |
Like when MS decided that their early Mpeg4 variant mustnīt be used in AVI, but only the junk format ASF?
| QUOTE | in essence i didn't asked you to tell me about your feelings towards ms, but to tell me if you know of a better lo-bitrate encoder at this time.
if not, then you must admit ms's stuff is leading the way. |
Yeah, I forgot that - I use DivX for all my encoding.
| QUOTE | | are you too a windows user that attacks ms? |
Could I be using VirtualDub otherwise?
| QUOTE | i don't understand such behaviour.
it is beyond me. |
Why? To me, there is no good alternative - I donīt like Linux, besides, most programs I use are Windows based.
Being forced to work with Windows every day provides enough reasons to hate MS. Every other day I see some problem with default behavior by Windows or something not working is it should be.
| QUOTE | if ms is an evil demon, i'll be sure to burn in hell with them; fcc will be there too.
|
Iīm not sure if "evel demon" is the right word. To be sure of that Iīd have to know if Bill G. really thinks that what heīs doing is the best for the user or if itīs mere money-making.
To get back on topic - DivX. Many DVD Players can play it by now, itīs Mpeg4, and (IMO) itīs great.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 10:17 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | I think I can. Their programs are junk, most of the time. They sell buggy software and claim itīs the users fault for not constantly updating. |
i guess you're thinking about the patching;i hate it too, but...imagine that linux has 90% of the desktops, and that security companies are really strugling to find every possible hole in the OS.
what would you say, would they find any?
same goes for mac.
programs are junk?
well, ms is mainly os maker, and thier os's are not crap, are they?
and their codecs are not crap, are they?
and i like IE much more than any mozila browser too.
some people would claim that 'office' is a nice piece of software too.
so i don't see ms programs as a junk at all.
ms stuff i use is pretty cool.
| QUOTE | | They try to take every option from the user, forcing a zombie-like attitude, telling users they donīt have to think when using a computer. |
how so?
zombies can't use a computer_period_.
but u said u use divx because it's simple; does that make u a zombie?
| QUOTE | | Like when MS decided that their early Mpeg4 variant mustnīt be used in AVI, but only the junk format ASF? |
who cares what they decided?
they can bite "my shiny metal ass" for all that i care; i put a codec i want in a container i want; and they can't touch me.
oh..and btw. why is asf a "junk" format?
you can't really prove avi is better container than asf, can you now?
| QUOTE | | Yeah, I forgot that - I use DivX for all my encoding. |
no mpeg4 codec can stack up to wmv9 at lo-bitrates.
| QUOTE | | Could I be using VirtualDub otherwise? |
yes.there are win emulators on linux.
use linux.
| QUOTE | | Why? To me, there is no good alternative - I donīt like Linux, besides, most programs I use are Windows based. |
what do you mean why?
you are saying that you hate ms for all other things beside the os?
and ms is mainly an os maker.
| QUOTE | | Being forced to work with Windows every day provides enough reasons to hate MS. Every other day I see some problem with default behavior by Windows or something not working is it should be. |
so you don't like it, but still you use it because there is nothing better?
if there is nothing better, what does that make microsoft?
the objective of os is not to satisfy every user on defaults.
but i have no objections to win2k whatsoever.
it is an os from my dreams.
| QUOTE | | To be sure of that Iīd have to know if Bill G. really thinks that what heīs doing is the best for the user or if itīs mere money-making. |
if the users don't think windows works, then they won't buy it; they'll start using freeware linux; but it seems as if this is not happening.
he is making money because users use his software.
you make better os and users will use that and you'll have the money (if money is what you're after)
| QUOTE | | To get back on topic - DivX. Many DVD Players can play it by now, itīs Mpeg4, and (IMO) itīs great. |
mpeg4pt2 is dead meat; it will never happen.
"mpeg4pt2" means "piracy" to hollywood.
it also means piracy to mpeg la.
if the industry needs better (than mpeg2) compression, they'll use h264/wmv9...but this won't happen soon at all (need for h264/wmv9 is driven by hdtv): untill then mpeg2 is all you'll be getting.ok, not really getting, but "all you'll be paying for".
remember my words; mpeg4pt2 won't ever happen on a grand scale.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 10:37 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | programs are junk?
well, ms is mainly os maker, and thier os's are not crap, are they? |
Are they not? Did you see WinXP? Do you think about all the holes that are found every once in a while?
| QUOTE | how so?
zombies can't use a computer_period_. |
You know what I meant.
| QUOTE | | but u said u use divx because it's simple; does that make u a zombie? |
DivX is simple, but it isnīt made for braindead people. You donīt have to just click one button and the program does all it has to do. (Or claims so)
| QUOTE | | who cares what they decided? |
What I read, their media player cared. Making the codec a no-no if you plan on distributing the file.
| QUOTE | | they can bite "my shiny metal ass" for all that i care; i put a codec i want in a container i want; and they can't touch me. |
Can they not? What if the player refuses to play the file?
| QUOTE | | oh..and btw. why is asf a "junk" format? |
Well, all ASF/WMV files I saw had mediocre quality at best. You canīt really search(rewind/fast forward) in ASF files.
Theyīre often larger than necessary, even streaming the content to AVI provided smaller sizes.
| QUOTE | | you can't really prove avi is better container than asf, can you now? |
AVI isnīt the best of choices, but itīs better than ASF. I can fast forward or rewind in the file, itīs often smaller(compared to ASF), and there are (apparently) better applications for it.
| QUOTE | yes.there are win emulators on linux.
use linux. |
I donīt trust emulators to simulate the OS that good.
| QUOTE | | and ms is mainly an os maker. |
Tell that to MS, I think they donīt know that.
| QUOTE | | so you don't like it, but still you use it because there is nothing better? |
Nothing that Iīd like to use.
| QUOTE | but i have no objections to win2k whatsoever.
it is an os from my dreams. |
It is a nice OS, granted. Better than Win9X and WinXP by far.
Yet there are many things that could be made better.
| QUOTE | | if the users don't think windows works, then they won't buy it; they'll start using freeware linux; but it seems as if this is not happening. |
I hear that quite often. Doesnīt make it any more reasonable.
A switch to a different OS would mean lots of trouble. For private persons as well as companies. The private persons would have to learn a new OS, completely different from the one they know.
Companies would have to instruct their users on the new system, theyīd have to find software that works on the new system, etc...
Also, thereīs the risk of interchanging data - what if the new OS doesnīt support the same files?
| QUOTE | mpeg4pt2 is dead meat; it will never happen.
"mpeg4pt2" means "piracy" to hollywood.
it also means piracy to mpeg la. |
What is mpeg4pt2? DivX?
If so, I donīt see why there should be a problem.
| QUOTE | | remember my words; mpeg4pt2 won't ever happen on a grand scale. |
Why not? Because thereīs no big company behind it, forcing others out of business?
Or because the codec doesnīt have a "click this button for video" interface?
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 23 2004, 11:15 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | Do you think about all the holes that are found every once in a while? |
read the first paragraph in my previous answer and answer it.
| QUOTE | | You donīt have to just click one button and the program does all it has to do. |
and ms programs do this?
which ones, i want 'em!
| QUOTE | | Making the codec a no-no if you plan on distributing the file. |
that was solved pretty quickly though.
just change fcc to "div3"
| QUOTE | | Can they not? What if the player refuses to play the file? |
see above for solution.
| QUOTE | | Well, all ASF/WMV files I saw had mediocre quality at best. |
so you didn't saw my asf/wmv files.
i saw crappy quality from many avi files, so does that mean avi is a bad container?
| QUOTE | | You canīt really search(rewind/fast forward) in ASF files. |
that's true.
| QUOTE | | Theyīre often larger than necessary, even streaming the content to AVI provided smaller sizes. |
nope, it didn't.
mpeg4 codecs have less quality than wmv7,8 and 9.
| QUOTE | | I can fast forward or rewind in the file, itīs often smaller(compared to ASF), and there are (apparently) better applications for it. |
you can rewind .avi? now that's weird!
smaller?huhm...codecs compress, not the containers.
avi has more apps which are better, yes;only as i always say, where's the need to tinker with encoded file anyway?
i know i won't be reencoding it , that's for sure.
| QUOTE | | Tell that to MS, I think they donīt know that. |
but you sure do, as you're running ms os.
| QUOTE | | Yet there are many things that could be made better. |
let's hear some of those things.
http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/
| QUOTE | | Why not? Because thereīs no big company behind it, forcing others out of business? |
because they can choose better codecs now.
would u use worse codec in a time you can pick better one?
| QUOTE | | Or because the codec doesnīt have a "click this button for video" interface? |
unfortunately wmencoder9 is not "click this button for video" at all. 
i find it too complicated to be of any use.
click this tab, click this tab, go here, go there=overkill.
(and these are not video quality tabs, but just the annoyance tabs)
and the batch scripting doesn't accept the avs input (go on fcc, solve that one for me...  )
this one
http://nic.dnsalias.com/wm9enc.html
is much better.
but i said those are good codecs;not the smashing gui encoders.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 04:07 AM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
i4004 defending Microsoft? Wow, I hope Neo Neko doesn't see this! 
I don't agree that the ASF/WMV container is junk. Don't judge the format by the junk people put into it. All of the WMVs I've made are seekable, and of excellent quality. The ASF specs are public now. It can encapsulate all that AVIs can, and so much more. (In fact, I once argued in favor of ASF over Matroska.)
Problem is, there hasn't been a lot of support from third party developers. I think it's mainly due to the complexity of ASF, plus the fact that it was originally a proprietary format. Also, it seems that a lot of open source developers hate anything that comes from Microsoft, just out of principle. 
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 07:52 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | and ms programs do this?
which ones, i want 'em!
|
An ASF encoder I once saw had an interface like that. It was no more than "open file" "set size" "do encoding".
| QUOTE | that was solved pretty quickly though.
just change fcc to "div3" |
Oh great - their codec is so good, you have to do a hack to actually use it!
Not only has the FourCC to be changed, every player has to know it as well. Doesnīt sound like a good solution to me.
| QUOTE | | see above for solution. |
So youīre replacing "Must not play this file" with "Can not play this file".
Whereīs the advantage?
| QUOTE | so you didn't saw my asf/wmv files.
i saw crappy quality from many avi files, so does that mean avi is a bad container? |
With AVI, there are more applications that allow for good encoding.
Maybe there are good apps for ASF by now, I still donīt see the advantage of it.
| QUOTE | | you can rewind .avi? now that's weird! |
I meant seeking backwards.
| QUOTE | | smaller?huhm...codecs compress, not the containers. |
True, but the container also has some size - some have more, some have less.
Iīve had several ASF files that were larger than their AVI equivalents(Direct Stream Copy of content to AVI).
| QUOTE | | where's the need to tinker with encoded file anyway? |
The question is how you encode it, not what youīre doing afterwards. The better the encoding application, the better the result.
| QUOTE | | let's hear some of those things. |
Well, what about that programs can overwrite DLL files without asking first? That can cause serious trouble if a program installs an older version than in use.
Of course, thatīs mainly the fault of the application programmer, but I think a good OS should prevent that.
Or the annoying accessing of the CD drive every time I start Windows Explorer(that the right name?) ?
(I have to admit, Win2K is alot better than Win98, which I used before. There are less problems now.)
| QUOTE | because they can choose better codecs now.
would u use worse codec in a time you can pick better one? |
I donīt think that DivX is a bad codec. Also, I donīt think MS can be trusted, I donīt like the idea of being dependent on their codec.
| QUOTE | unfortunately wmencoder9 is not "click this button for video" at all.
i find it too complicated to be of any use.
click this tab, click this tab, go here, go there=overkill.
(and these are not video quality tabs, but just the annoyance tabs) |
Well, Iīm honestly surprised. I would have thought that MS produces something for the braindead. Apparently Iīm wrong.
[EDIT]
Digged up an old thread:
http://virtualdub.everwicked.com/index.php...64&hl=streaming
Did your attitude towards ASF change?
[edit2]
| QUOTE | | Also, it seems that a lot of open source developers hate anything that comes from Microsoft, just out of principle. |
I canīt speak for others, but it may be because of too many bad experiences with MS products.
As I said, Win2K is quite good, but Win98 was horrible(looking back at it).
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 01:14 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | i4004 defending Microsoft? Wow, I hope Neo Neko doesn't see this! |
i will defend anything that i've found good.
and neko may continue running vdub on linux; why not?
i know i won't.
We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us
| QUOTE | | Also, it seems that a lot of open source developers hate anything that comes from Microsoft, just out of principle |
a nice things should be picked from all sides; think about it; real-video (for toons) in the asf container with speex sound. 
although i don't think anyone can really explain why ms made avery remove asf from vdub.
if they didn't do that, we would have much more asf today.
(probably even slo-motion capability...heh..)
| QUOTE |
An ASF encoder I once saw had an interface like that. It was no more than "open file" "set size" "do encoding". |
it makes simpler to produce video so that more people can do it:you don't honestly believe someone will use ffvfw mpeg4 once it sees all the options?
but wmv tools i used always have the "quality" slider (sharper images with dropped frames or higher quantizer images without drops), KF span, framerate...i didn't tried their resizer, and i probably never will ,though.
and if you know what you're doing, nice quality can be achieved, as fcc said.
| QUOTE | | Oh great - their codec is so good, you have to do a hack to actually use it! |
no you don't.
you can use mpeg4v3 via wmencoder7.
| QUOTE | | Not only has the FourCC to be changed, every player has to know it as well. Doesnīt sound like a good solution to me. |
just dload divx3 and you'll be using mpeg4v3 in the .avi.
as simple as that.
for my content, mpeg4v3 really stood the test of time.
what a wonderfull piece of software.
advanced uses can try nandub to improve upon the simple concept of "smooth/sharp" slider by tweaking 2pass modes or by limiting the quants in 1pass mode (as i do)
the mpegv3 codec ment to be a vehicle to launch asf, so that's why they removed it from .avi; although, i never really saw a perceptable difference between v2 and v3 on the bitrates i tried.
| QUOTE | So youīre replacing "Must not play this file" with "Can not play this file".
Whereīs the advantage? |
ms' attempt to remove ms-mpeg4v3 from .avi doesn't really mean they succeeded: there are no problems in finding a divx3 or hacked version of v3 (although that's the same thing, only v3 will have mp43 as fourcc) to put into .avi.
or finding a player/dshow filter capable of playing it.
so there is no real problem with that at all.
and now you can even put wmv9 into .avi.
while i believe support for both containers should of been maintained for all the codecs, i don't really see a big problem this way either.
yes, ms makes mistakes, but it also makes excellent video-codecs.
i hope h264 can beat wmv9 (as i don't particularly like wmv9's speed or artefacts it produces (the "shit" problem was solved via slowing down the encoding, but swimming wasn't; also sometimes walls look like they're gif..pretty nasty)) because even with the problems i just explained, wmv9 is at this time best lobitrate codec.
if someone can prove me wrong, i'm listening (as always.)
so untill/if this happens, wmv9 is best lo-bitrate codec.
(ohh..yeah..that reminds me..gotta test the 'snow' codec of mencoder today....as there can never be such thing as "too efficient codec")
proof, people,proof; existing codec is better than any codec that lives on paper only!
prove to me h264 is better!
but by real clips, not via cabac theory.
| QUOTE | | With AVI, there are more applications that allow for good encoding. |
avi itself doesn't do anything; codecs allow more options on encoding.
| QUOTE | | I meant seeking backwards. |
yeah, i ment the same thing; this doesn't really work on avi either.doesn't work with mpeg1/2 too.
all you get is frame from here and then frame some time before.
that's just skipping frames.
you can skip in this way, but you can't really use this to find a particular scene with a decent precision.
i just tried it with my wmv file and zplayer; rewind works, but 15sec KF doesn't really help things.
and avi with same KF span would probably work equally crappy.
the forward search works as expected, though.
| QUOTE | | Iīve had several ASF files that were larger than their AVI equivalents |
how much larger?
i never measured, but i don't think asf has significantly larger overhead than .avi.
fcc can probably answer that.
| QUOTE | | The question is how you encode it, not what youīre doing afterwards. |
nothing wrong with the quality of wmv codecs, as i said.
| QUOTE |
Well, what about that programs can overwrite DLL files without asking first? That can cause serious trouble if a program installs an older version than in use. |
which ones?
i'm usually asked if i wanna keep the existing file if it's newer than the file i'm attempting to install.
| QUOTE | | Of course, thatīs mainly the fault of the application programmer, but I think a good OS should prevent that. |
and it does.
it also asks when i'm uninstalling.
it says the dll ma ybe shared so it may be wise to leave it there.
| QUOTE | | Or the annoying accessing of the CD drive every time I start Windows Explorer(that the right name?) ? |
so keep it on all the time, so that it accesses it onyl once per session.
| QUOTE | | I donīt think that DivX is a bad codec. Also, I donīt think MS can be trusted, I donīt like the idea of being dependent on their codec. |
how are you dependant on their codec?
you can use any codec you like.
ms is not stopping you.
divx is not a bad codec, but on the bitrates where wmv9 still looks good, divx is crap.
nobody is/was/will be dependant on ms codecs.
i use them because i like them.and because i have tested other codecs which were worse than ms stuff.
ms knows how to make a video-codec.
| QUOTE | | Well, Iīm honestly surprised. I would have thought that MS produces something for the braindead. Apparently Iīm wrong. |
i can only see that you're discussing a stuff you never used; bad, BAD cyberman!
| QUOTE | | Did your attitude towards ASF change? |
you mean this
| QUOTE | | also,i agree,i hate asf too.....(i have 56k modem,perhaps that's the reason..hehe) |
?
well..i still hate 56k streaming.
but now i've find a way to record 150k wmv streams; well, looks better than your klingon lang. proggie.
it is kinda tragic that most of the web-video is so poorly optimized.
i mean in a time of wmv9 i still find many asf/wmv files with mpeg4v3, which is totally inadequate for a purpose.
that goes for realvideo stuff too(usage of outdated codecs), and for qt it goes that they don't really have a nice codec to use.
i hate bitrate wasting, as i'm on 56k modem.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 02:48 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | | it makes simpler to produce video so that more people can do it: |
"Simple" often means "mediocre". I donīt think that a codec or program could judge by itīs own how to encode it. I like to have some control at least.
| QUOTE | | you don't honestly believe someone will use ffvfw mpeg4 once it sees all the options? |
I donīt know that, but I donīt doubt it if you say so.
As I said before, you can go too far in both directions. Thatīs why I donīt use XviD, for example.
| QUOTE | just dload divx3 and you'll be using mpeg4v3 in the .avi.
as simple as that. |
To you and me, yes. But what about the average user? Those who merely want to see a movie, and might be convinced to download a (legal) codec they donīt have. Do you think theyīd readily agree to download a rather illegal codec?
| QUOTE | | ms' attempt to remove ms-mpeg4v3 from .avi doesn't really mean they succeeded: there are no problems in finding a divx3 or hacked version of v3 |
The problem here lies in the word "hack".
I donīt remember, but I think itīs been into megabytes.
I still donīt know how or why that could have been, maybe the original creator inserted some junk into them. All I know is that I opened the files with VDub 1.3c and saved as AVI, with DSC both.
Damned if I know. All I know is I get this annoying "SetHandlerContext not found in Kernel32.dll" every once in a while. A search revealed that itīs because this function doesnīt exist in Win2K, but existed in Win9X.
Some program must have replaced the original file(which is NOT the Kernel32.DLL) with itīs own, outdated, copy.
| QUOTE | | i'm usually asked if i wanna keep the existing file if it's newer than the file i'm attempting to install. |
Only if the installer is kind enough to ask you. Itīs not the OS.
| QUOTE | | so keep it on all the time, so that it accesses it onyl once per session. |
Huh?
| QUOTE | how are you dependant on their codec?
you can use any codec you like.
ms is not stopping you. |
Not yet. But as I said, I donīt trust them. I wouldnīt be surprised if they found a way to create their own "standard" and force others to use it as well.
Paranoid, I know. Still, I wouldnīt be surprised.
| QUOTE | | i can only see that you're discussing a stuff you never used; bad, BAD cyberman! |
Well, yes. I admit Iīve been drawing a conclusion only from my earlier experiences with MS.
| QUOTE | well, looks better than your klingon lang. proggie.
|
Not entirely sure what youīre refering to, but I can guarantee that the final videos look better than any previous file I might have shown.
Besides, with source material that bad, itīs no wonder itīs not looking great. It ainīt exactly DVD material, you know...
| QUOTE | | it is kinda tragic that most of the web-video is so poorly optimized. |
web-video? You mean streaming videos?
Perhaps itīs the fault of the encoding application? ;-)
| QUOTE | | i hate bitrate wasting, as i'm on 56k modem. |
Well, Iīve got ADSL, yet I still hate bitrate wasting. Everyone does.
One of the reasonīs I included the lines:
When you encode a video for distribution - for GODs sake, use an AUDIO compression too!
and
Cinepak, Indeo, Video1 - they all may once have been great codecs. Just as a horse once was a great method of transportation...
as well as
So, youīre going to use Cinepak for compression? Youīre joking, right? No, not Indeo either. Or are you still using stone tablets for writing?
into my sig-pic.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 04:54 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | "Simple" often means "mediocre". I donīt think that a codec or program could judge by itīs own how to encode it. I like to have some control at least. |
i like nice quality video, no matter how it was achieved; if it was one click+nice quality, then even better!
i hate to waste time on setting up a system for more than....10seconds...
| QUOTE | | As I said before, you can go too far in both directions. Thatīs why I donīt use XviD, for example. |
xvid is piece of cake compared to ffvfw: xvid only has checkboxes, and some are good for somethings and others for other things.
simple.
but ffvfw in itself is nothing compared to mencoder;
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/man/en/mplayer.1.html
scroll down to "CODEC SPECIFIC ENCODING OPTIONS (MENCODER ONLY)"
if this was the only encoder available, nobody would use it (although one might argue that almost nobody is using it now too.... )
but it also means a total control over codec.
only way to control it more would be to mod the encoder itself.
| QUOTE | | Do you think theyīd readily agree to download a rather illegal codec? |
same goes for xvid and ffdshow;
both "rather illegal".
i said, divx3 is much less illegal than xvid or ffdshow.
divx3 is just ms codec in a different container; really how would ms go on with a prosecution against me?
please tell me.
they would sue me for what?
copyright infringment?
| QUOTE | | The problem here lies in the word "hack". |
a really big hack it was...lol!
| QUOTE | | All I know is that I opened the files with VDub 1.3c and saved as AVI, with DSC both. |
hm...make a test where you'll encode video with same bitrate witht divx and some wmv codec (ie same total bitrate);
do these files differ?
avi si smaller "by mb's"?
or not?
i gave you link to encoder gui, so you may as well try it.
| QUOTE | | "SetHandlerContext not found in Kernel32.dll" |
fcc shoudl answer this; he's a 'handler' after all.
| QUOTE | | Some program must have replaced the original file(which is NOT the Kernel32.DLL) with itīs own, outdated, copy. |
well..weird program can mess up the working os, you're right there.
but is that os' fault?
| QUOTE | | Only if the installer is kind enough to ask you. Itīs not the OS. |
anyway,program flaw is not the os flaw.
you said explorer accesses the cdrom when you start it; so keep it on all the time.
but don't try to use empty cd-rom all the time.
heh...
i'm using powerdesk and i don't see this.
it accesses cd-rom when i say.
windows explorer seems to be defaulting to "my documents" folder.
so it doesn't access the cd-rom drive either.
I | QUOTE | | wouldnīt be surprised if they found a way to create their own "standard" and force others to use it as well. |
yeah, they'll bundle the mediaplayer with the OS and the EU will sue them; ohh wait..that already happened!
what a bunch of euro-trash.
user is profiting from the bundles!
it means more choice.
they did create their own standard (asf/wmv and avi is ibm/ms standard) and everybody is using it?
horrible, isn't it?
and you do too!
| QUOTE | | Well, yes. I admit Iīve been drawing a conclusion only from my earlier experiences with MS. |
if win98 was all there is i wouldn't be using PC today; as simple as that.
that's my earlier experience with win.
some people say win98 works; for me it didn't.
i mean i'm sure it would work better if i installed 3-4 programs only, but...heh...
plenty of stuff installed on win2k,and still going strong.
(win2k , my baby...  )
| QUOTE |
Not entirely sure what youīre refering to, but I can guarantee that the final videos look better than any previous file I might have shown. |
i'm kidding;offcourse cinepak looks like crap and nobody can fix it.
(it was cinepak, right?)
| QUOTE | web-video? You mean streaming videos?
Perhaps itīs the fault of the encoding application? ;-) |
i mean web-video and streaming. (ie files to dload and a streaming videos)
it's the fault of humans doing the encodings.
they use outdated codecs.
| QUOTE | | Well, Iīve got ADSL, yet I still hate bitrate wasting. Everyone does. |
no, not everyone does!
internet archive doesn't hate it.
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view...14ba2270a45eff0
they say dvd over the web is cool and everything;
i say they need to offer most efficient codec;wmv9
if you have flat rate, might as well dload few cc episodes for me (no harm in asking. )
| QUOTE | | When you encode a video for distribution - for GODs sake, use an AUDIO compression too! |
yes, that happens too.
| QUOTE | | Cinepak, Indeo, Video1 - they all may once have been great codecs. Just as a horse once was a great method of transportation... |
i got some old intel commercials from '98 from here
http://www.sightspecific.com/~mosh/
dear ohh..dear...
please don't repeat my mistake. 
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 07:16 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE | | same goes for xvid and ffdshow; |
Neither am I using.
| QUOTE | i said, divx3 is much less illegal than xvid or ffdshow.
divx3 is just ms codec in a different container; really how would ms go on with a prosecution against me?
please tell me.
they would sue me for what?
copyright infringment? |
Something like that, yes. After all, youīre using a modified version of their codec, essentially circumventing their copy-protection.
Mind, Iīve been using DivX 3 myself, because itīs been a good codec. But I wouldnīt want to put a video up(public) with that codec. At least not when my name is there as well ;-)
| QUOTE | | a really big hack it was...lol! |
Hack nonetheless.
| QUOTE | well..weird program can mess up the working os, you're right there.
but is that os' fault? |
Yes. The OSī purpose is to run and manage programs, make sure they get the resources they need and donīt do any harm.
An OS that canīt even protect itīs own files is a bad OS in my eyes.
Itīs not as if it were so hard - every program uses the OS internal functions to copy files, no?
| QUOTE | | anyway,program flaw is not the os flaw. |
The OS should be able to survive program flaws, otherwise thereīs no need for it.
| QUOTE | yeah, they'll bundle the mediaplayer with the OS and the EU will sue them; ohh wait..that already happened!
what a bunch of euro-trash.
user is profiting from the bundles!
it means more choice. |
Profiting from it? How? Because everyone getīs their player placed into the system without wanting so?
Because many users wonīt even realize they could have a choice?
MS could make their player downloadable instead.
| QUOTE | | (it was cinepak, right?) |
No, it was DUCK Truemotion 2.X . Not any better, though. Horrible quality, with artifacts because of not enough bitrate.
A visible white-like grid, remains of rasterized dithering to reduce colors.
Every second smoothing attempt results in complete loss of detail.
| QUOTE | | if you have flat rate, might as well dload few cc episodes for me (no harm in asking. ) |
Flat rate? Not really, 4Gig per month - thatīs all.
What is "CC" ?
--
Say, could it be that something screws up the quoting system?
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 08:22 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
CC=Computer Chronicles
i would like to see the episode where they use amiga for video. ( )
| QUOTE | | Say, could it be that something screws up the quoting system? |
yes, you always do.
what browser are you using?
you are aware that you must use IE6, right?
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Oct 24 2004, 09:22 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Computer Chronicles? Never heard of. Is it good?
What do you mean "itīs you"?
I am using IE6, yes. Why?
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
|
