CoreCodec/H.264 Codec "CoreAVC" [Archive] - Page 28

popper

7th June 2006, 06:56

Again, I'm speaking purely for mpeg2. If I'm not mistaken those BBC samples are mpeg4 no? Simply, Smarter codec algorithm, higher utilization no?

Related to what you said, what would be the best codecs around right now? I thought CoreAVC was bar non for cpu cycles vs. playback of native HD. FFDShow even better + MBAFF? If so, I'll have to give it a whirl!

EDIT: I don't mean to start "whose better" or anything like that... just would like whatever is available now that will play Planet Earth smoothly on my rig.

3.0Ghz Northwood
1 GB DDR
Nividia 6800 (AGP)

well, it is, the thing is though, when we say HD we are refering to the UK/EU and the fact we make use of current AVC/H.264 HD Tech, rather than the older US Mpeg2 HD standard (unless your the CEO of Telewest now (a 20%) part of NTL. rather short sighted that move Mr CEO).

AFAIK, the core team dont make/market an Mpeg2 decoder (is there a market for that?), only the coreAVC H.264 codec.

Revgen

7th June 2006, 07:30

Highly unlikely. The BBC samples I tried are major CPU killers compared to example Apple 1080p trailers. It's not just because of MBAFF (that slows things down too), but the high 20MBit CABAC bitrate and the always turned on deblocking (which can eat quite a lot of cpu).

Also my guess CoreAVC's first MBAFF verison will have less speed advantage compared to other decoder (I couldn't compare speed yet..). I was happy to finally have a working byte correct decoder, didn't focus on optimizing MBAFF yet.

20mbit/sec is way too high IMHO. HDTV MPEG-2-TS Streams broadcast in the US are about that rate minus audio and the .ts container. MPEG4 should be lowered to at least 15mbit/sec or even less IMHO.

I can say with 100% certainty that this beta is faster than Cyberlinks. It still jerks a little bit though, but at least it's watchable compared to Cyberlink. Right now only 55-65% of my two cores is being utilized. I'm sure further opts will improve this.

Blueking

7th June 2006, 08:15

Revgen,

It still jerks a little bit though

Whats the spec of your machine ?
Is the Audio in sync with the video all the time ?

Regards,

Blueking

SeeMoreDigital

7th June 2006, 09:12

20mbit/sec is way too high IMHO. HDTV MPEG-2-TS Streams broadcast in the US are about that rate minus audio and the .ts container. MPEG4 should be lowered to at least 15mbit/sec or even less IMHO.Indeed....

Once the DVB-S2 transmission system is running with more channels per transponder, it would seem the bit-rate per channel will fall: -

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9576/dvbs2compchart2bl.png

Cheers

Jay Bee

7th June 2006, 10:25

While we were at it... we added:
- double frame mode (50fps will look better now ;-)

and are looking at adding BOB Deinterlaced... will will push to get this out tomorrow.... but as indicated may go as late as thursday the 8th to allow for further QA testing which has gone very well! Thx to all the testers!

Very nice. Then all we will need is a good interlaced encoder and AVC will be perfect for encoding interlaced analog TV. Keep up the good work.

20mbit/sec is way too high IMHO. HDTV MPEG-2-TS Streams broadcast in the US are about that rate minus audio and the .ts container. MPEG4 should be lowered to at least 15mbit/sec or even less IMHO.

I think you should be careful about encouraging broadcasters to lower the bitrate. :) You should see how German digital pay-TV has ended up. The picture is often blocky like a VCD and vastly inferior to analog TV.

I can say with 100% certainty that this beta is faster than Cyberlinks. It still jerks a little bit though, but at least it's watchable compared to Cyberlink. Right now only 55-65% of my two cores is being utilized. I'm sure further opts will improve this.

What exactly are you comparing? Cyberlink in software mode? 55-65%: does that mean there is a chance for fast single cores to be able to do the job?

videomixer9

7th June 2006, 13:29

TEB

7th June 2006, 13:32

any news on mpeg2 support in the decoder?

videomixer9

7th June 2006, 13:35

What's CoreAVC to do with MPEG2? It's an AVC decoder and MPEG2 is nowhere near what I'd call Advanced Video Coding :O

Scoty

7th June 2006, 15:12

the latest CoreAVC ist 1.1 ? i have 1.0 Pro.

Revgen

7th June 2006, 18:44

Revgen,

Whats the spec of your machine ?
Is the Audio in sync with the video all the time ?

Regards,

Blueking

Audio is always in sync with the video as far as I can tell. Keep in mind that these samples are nature documentaries and sports footage with very little closeups of people.

My machine is an AMD 4600+ AMD X2.

Revgen

7th June 2006, 18:49

Remember that TV is live encoded at one pass :P If you think about bitrate don't take your 2pass filtered encodes as example. Some movies might be preencoded but usually stations don't hassle with that. The bitrates used here e.g. on regular DTV are already so low that you sometimes cannot even see any details anymore cause the one pass encoding blows that much. Though people like my blind dad claim to not see the suckiness e.g. in when they should a live report with a flowing water in background. AVC improves a bit on this thing but I'd not encourage any bitrate lowerings!

An ATSC 1080i MPEG2-TS video is typically 20-mbit/sec and looks pretty good for most people.

Why have AVC video at 20-mbit/sec? Heck why even have 20-mbit/sec for PAL which broadcasts at 50i? And why even bother using deblocking at this bitrate which is unecessary and makes decoding even more difficult?

The whole purpose of using the AVC codec is to improve bandwith over MPEG-2. Broadcasting AVC at 20-mbit/sec defeats that whole purpose.

Revgen

7th June 2006, 18:53

the latest CoreAVC ist 1.1 ? i have 1.0 Pro.

CoreAVC 1.1 is currently a beta right now being tested by beta testers. Betaboy said that the public version should be coming soon. Try asking him for more details.

Revgen

7th June 2006, 19:41

I think you should be careful about encouraging broadcasters to lower the bitrate. :) You should see how German digital pay-TV has ended up. The picture is often blocky like a VCD and vastly inferior to analog TV.

Please read my reply to videomixer.

What exactly are you comparing? Cyberlink in software mode? 55-65%: does that mean there is a chance for fast single cores to be able to do the job?

65% means that one core is being used 100% and the other is being used 30%.

BetaBoy

7th June 2006, 20:35

We only have one major directshow bug atm and it is related to only 'some' DVBViewer users and might not be CoreAVC at all.

This is the hardest one to fix as it is only related to 'live' streams in the UK and since none of our devs are from there... we'll you get the picture. We will try our best to get it taken care of.... but because of it we will not release it till tomorrow now.

Here is the current changelog:

Version 1.1.0.3 (20060607)
- Add: MBAFF added to CoreAVC Professional Edition
- Add: PAFF frames in MBAFF
- Add: Haali Media Splitter with full MPEG TS stream support
- Add: Deblocking options
- Add: Software deinterlacing options
- Add: Double frame mode option
- Add: Can accept RAW unformatted ES streams
- Fix: TS Aspect Ratio resize bug fixed
- Fix: Green screen and Artifacts bug fixed
- Fix: Video skipping fixed
- Fix: Audio skipping fixed
- Fix: Various Bugs from the bugtracker

Oxygen

8th June 2006, 06:46

An ATSC 1080i MPEG2-TS video is typically 20-mbit/sec and looks pretty good for most people.

Why have AVC video at 20-mbit/sec? Heck why even have 20-mbit/sec for PAL which broadcasts at 50i? And why even bother using deblocking at this bitrate which is unecessary and makes decoding even more difficult?

The whole purpose of using the AVC codec is to improve bandwith over MPEG-2. Broadcasting AVC at 20-mbit/sec defeats that whole purpose.

As deblocking is optional on the Coreavc 1.1 so you shouldn't worry too much about that part.

Also, you need to understand even the BBC broadcast is for now on test, it may evolve when it goes into production stage.

And finally, BBC is not the only DVB AVC broadcaster :). We are currently having like the BBC a small scale DVB-T broadcast test in France. Stream is 1440x1050i like the BBC, execpt it's at 10MBits, and we should get two on a single DVB Frequency (instead of one for the BBC atm). Second test regards an HD via DSL: ISP Free broadcast a 5.6MBits AVC stream, this time it's 'semi'HD, res is 960x1080i.

Last, AVC DVB-T reception is quite hard, as not only it requires a fast computer to decode, it also need an improved DVB-T reception compared to MPEG2 DVB-T from what i can see.

woah!

8th June 2006, 07:17

As deblocking is optional on the Coreavc 1.1 so you shouldn't worry too much about that part.

Also, you need to understand even the BBC broadcast is for now on test, it may evolve when it goes into production stage.

And finally, BBC is not the only DVB AVC broadcaster :). We are currently having like the BBC a small scale DVB-T broadcast test in France. Stream is 1440x1050i like the BBC, execpt it's at 10MBits, and we should get two on a single DVB Frequency (instead of one for the BBC atm). Second test regards an HD via DSL: ISP Free broadcast a 5.6MBits AVC stream, this time it's 'semi'HD, res is 960x1080i.

Last, AVC DVB-T reception is quite hard, as not only it requires a fast computer to decode, it also need an improved DVB-T reception compared to MPEG2 DVB-T from what i can see.

10mbit sound smore like what AVC was supposed to be able to do, so the broadcasters could get more channels at high Q.

using AVC at 20mbit just seems crazy to me, but i suppose once its up and running good the BBC might add more HD channels and then it will probably come down then.

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 08:17

- Add: Can accept RAW unformatted ES streams

I should have noted that this is for CoreAVC Enterprise Edition

Morte66

8th June 2006, 10:28

using AVC at 20mbit just seems crazy to me, but i suppose once its up and running good the BBC might add more HD channels and then it will probably come down then.

It seems very likely that 23mbps is the whole multiplex, and it will carry 3 or 4 HDTV channels.

You can certainly make good 1920x1080p or 1440x1080p encodes (whichever they'll use) at 6000kbps, but they may be need a more complex set of h264 options than real time encoders want to use. They'd also be relatively hard to decode for their bitrate.

But AFAICT the BBC trials are for a system that's years away from actual use in anger. By then they'll be able to put something like a 2nd/3rd gen Cell processor in the set top box dirt cheap, and use a wardrobe-sized rack of them at the broadcast end.

skippy909

8th June 2006, 10:47

Hi, just wondering if anyone can advise. What software will be usable view the BBC HD trail with the Enterprise edition CoreAVC?
DVBViewer is one, any others? What is preferred?
Also, currently have Nebula card with DigiTV, which is good overall setup, will CoreAVC codec work directly with this software or will the Nebula people need to 'add it into' their software? Cheers for all the help and looking forward to getting into the HD trial today.

The1

8th June 2006, 11:10

Hi all.

Just to say have been watching and waiting for the release of the mbaff support. I have no worries about it being great.

ps. Hurry up betaboy I am waiting with my paypal account itching to go!! :-)

videomixer9

8th June 2006, 11:29

http://haali.cs.msu.ru/mkv/mkx.ts.2.exe

HM, test version of Haali Media Splitter with ts support.

Jay Bee

8th June 2006, 12:56

http://haali.cs.msu.ru/mkv/mkx.ts.2.exe

HM, test version of Haali Media Splitter with ts support.

Pretty nice. Best TS-Splitter yet. The only file I tested that didn't work (stayed at 00:00) is "Forma1_HDTV_promo_1080i_part1.ts", which I can't find online anymore.

Also some clips have quite a long startup delay.

Is this the right place for Haali feedback?

SeeMoreDigital

8th June 2006, 14:27

I'm happy to report that Media Player Classic's internal .TS splitter also works very well....

I could not see any differences between the two ;)

popper

8th June 2006, 14:30

As deblocking is optional on the Coreavc 1.1 so you shouldn't worry too much about that part.

Also, you need to understand even the BBC broadcast is for now on test, it may evolve when it goes into production stage.

And finally, BBC is not the only DVB AVC broadcaster :). We are currently having like the BBC a small scale DVB-T broadcast test in France. Stream is 1440x1050i like the BBC, execpt it's at 10MBits, and we should get two on a single DVB Frequency (instead of one for the BBC atm). Second test regards an HD via DSL: ISP Free broadcast a 5.6MBits AVC stream, this time it's 'semi'HD, res is 960x1080i.

Last, AVC DVB-T reception is quite hard, as not only it requires a fast computer to decode, it also need an improved DVB-T reception compared to MPEG2 DVB-T from what i can see.

interesting, do you have any links to the french samples, a url for the isp stream and are they also trialing with the MBAFF settings ?.

i seem to remember that (i think it was) spain? (or was it germany)was also doing DVB-H trial like the london one just finished, but were useing AVC instead of Mpeg2, i cant remember now, or find the url's but thought id mention it incase someone finds the current info to add to the subject.

popper

8th June 2006, 14:40

10mbit sound smore like what AVC was supposed to be able to do, so the broadcasters could get more channels at high Q.

using AVC at 20mbit just seems crazy to me, but i suppose once its up and running good the BBC might add more HD channels and then it will probably come down then.

well, you also have to consider that DVB HD is speced to go very much higher than even the current size, so in the longer term future, that bit rate will be required.

Nick [D]vB

8th June 2006, 14:52

Boxon has sent me a sample from the French IPTV service,

it is definitely interlaced but I can't remember if it is MBAFF or not:

http://rapidshare.de/files/22082864/23HD.ts.zip.html

BTW, has anyone else had problems with the new TS splitter?

Quite a few of my TS samples won't give any output pins.

I think some of them are just bad dumps [not starting on a sync byte etc]

but the Elecard demux seems to cope with them OK???

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 14:56

popper

8th June 2006, 15:06

vB']Boxon has sent me a sample from the French IPTV service,

it is definitely interlaced but I can't remember if it is MBAFF or not:

http://rapidshare.de/files/22082864/23HD.ts.zip.html

BTW, has anyone else had problems with the new TS splitter?

Quite a few of my TS samples won't give any output pins.

I think some of them are just bad dumps [not starting on a sync byte etc]

but the Elecard demux seems to cope with them OK???

thanks Nick,
any chance of putting it on another server as already im getting this
"You have requested the file 23HD.ts.zip (86958 KB). This file has been downloaded 5 times already.
IMPORTANT: Download-accelerators are only supported with a PREMIUM-Account!

You have downloaded 43592 KB. Want to download more?
Get your own Premium-account now! Instant download-access! (Or wait 68 minutes)"

i hate rapidshare, has someone here got a simple ftp and/or webspace were Nick and other people with samples can put them without all this advertising, (bring back the old days and proper free servers )

SeeMoreDigital

8th June 2006, 15:50

Yep.... Even after a download ticket has been allocated to me RapidShare still directs me to sign-up to their "Premium" service!

Compared to others, it's the least friendly file host service...

videomixer9

8th June 2006, 16:12

It just prevents massive downloads due to lots of warez abuse and that your lousy ISP forces proxies onto you is nothing a germany based service would care about as we don't have a single lousy ISP as that here, though it's a bit strict considering traffic is cheapass stuff here :p Their bonus is that comparing to some other large hoster especially US-based ones they're are actually fast, especially you can also upload fast to them.

In the forum there's only a few people that cannot use it and all of them got some major lousy ISPs, I guess that's why so less people care about it :p And free hoster that allow downloads anymore aren't anymore due to warez and excessive downloading without people seeing any ads than which they used to finance stuff with, that's why these free download services usually got the pages switched in front.

And seriously who'd buy proper hosting that can turn into a pricey thing without any large scale use. Even though you can get plenty of unlimited offers.

SeeMoreDigital

8th June 2006, 17:15

In the UK there are only two main cable service providers, NTL and TeleWest, so there's not much room to try other cable providers!

In the main most of my neighbours use either BT or BullDog, both of whom love to quote all kinds of speeds in their ads but in-reality are nowhere near obtainable over a (two-wire) telephone network with a contention ratio of 50:1.... They are just too busy, their speeds are unreliable and their connections are always dropping out!

By contrast, my NTL cable ISP service runs at 4Mbps with a contention ratio of just 20:1 and is rock solid... So no way am I moving over (or should I say back) to a telephone networked ISP, just so I can use RapidShare!

So far it's only the German based RapidShare file hoster I seem to have problems with.... All the other free ones seem to work fine, including YouSendIt.com

Cheers

videomixer9

8th June 2006, 17:32

Well a 45gbit/s+ farm is expensive and I can understand their limiting, most other services don't have that kind of bandwidth, if they wouldn't limit they'd probably have some problems with the amount of warez on it and people downloading hundrets of GB round the clock with scripts.

Btw. CoreAVC Pro seems to have found ways onto rapidshare too besides all the other regular warez and movies :p

popper

8th June 2006, 18:04

be that as it may(shitty that they wont help core grow though), i thought the idea was to help progress AVC around the world and ( and indeed all the other formats)give the developers, and interested partys as easy access to these needed/wanted samples and get them.

its a shame AmiNet dont have a video section, they have a MOD's, sound and pictures section though, they would then take these video samples without blinking about bandwidth.

just because people dont post about not being able to get the posted files doesnt mean theirs not a lot of people trying to get them, especially the HD stuff, and in fact D9 has a very long waiting to post rate, after registering

like SeeMore said, the NTL(80%) and telewest(20%) are the largest cable providers in the UK and NOW are infact one company covering the whole UK, so we dont have much choice.

SeeMore, i take it your in one of the 'Cardiff, Swansea and Belfast' area's im waiting for my south manchester section to be re-configured :(

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 18:18

Btw. CoreAVC Pro seems to have found ways onto rapidshare too besides all the other regular warez and movies :p

Not much anyone can do about that... As I had indicated earlier... starting with CoreAVC 1.1 we will require online authentication to activate CoreAVC

All warezed versions have been flagged and the users that registered it will not be capable of registering any other Core products with the same name/email address/cc.

With CoreAVC 1.2 Our Core Account system locks in specific hardware to the CoreNumber which is tied directly to the device and account.

This is all part of what we are doing with our long term plans with CorePlayer Mobile/PMP/Desktop and our Media Library (internally called CoreTunes).

phigment

8th June 2006, 18:33

With CoreAVC 1.2 Our Core Account system locks in specific hardware to the CoreNumber which is tied directly to the device and account.

Does this mean we can only use CoreAVC on one machine?

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 18:37

Does this mean we can only use CoreAVC on one machine?
Yes, when you purchase a license it is (as it states in the AVC licensing) for (1) PC software.

popper

8th June 2006, 19:11

Not much anyone can do about that... As I had indicated earlier... starting with CoreAVC 1.1 we will require online authentication to activate CoreAVC

All warezed versions have been flagged and the users that registered it will not be capable of registering any other Core products with the same name/email address/cc.

With CoreAVC 1.2 Our Core Account system locks in specific hardware to the CoreNumber which is tied directly to the device and account.

This is all part of what we are doing with our long term plans with CorePlayer Mobile/PMP/Desktop and our Media Library (internally called CoreTunes).

thats a mistake BetaBoy,you really should re-think that move,as over the years i'v talking with many amiga/phinixi/Genesi/ non windows x86/PPC developers and companys that wanted to go down that limited online internet registration and just about every one of them found that their sales were far less than they would hope because of it.

the reason is pritty simple , even in the UK, for every machine on the net, there are 100+ more that are not.

i understand as a currently small company, just starting out, you want to maximise your IP potential, but id advise you seriously think about other ways to register the products as well as the net.

the massive buzz around the HD should and indeed currently is, making a really good name for your company and product as we speak, dont spoil that by inforcing net only activation, it will only hurt your coreAVC in both the short term and the longer term, but its your choice.

as regards the one copy per machine, that too could be seen by the customer as a rather harsh move, would you consider a reduced rate for buying several copys for people that have several networked PCs and would assume they could use a copy on all of them, lots of other thoughts, but i can see many, many people thinking twice about using coreAVC after all, even if it is the fastest decoder so far and you have done such a good job of giving the end users what they want and need so far..........

Nick [D]vB

8th June 2006, 19:49

Nick... any clips you are having an issue with... please send them to Haali via yousendit.com to test ASAP... thx

Sorry I missed your replies, my email notifications takes hours to come through for some reason???

The problem TS samples are huge [several Gb's] and I only have 200K upload but I will try and hack the first 20Mb's of each file with a hex editor and upload them as soon as I can.

I have just tested the latest CoreAVC beta and I still can't get this color bug in DVBViewer

Have you contacted Griga to see if the color bug is a DVBViewer issue???

I have a few other observations:

[1] I still can't get 25fps in DVBViewer on single core system but the performance is better and the CPU usage is now more stable [not flicking between 50 & 100%]

[2] The glitching on my dual core system seems to have gone with one exception, it can not cope with vertically scrolling text [like credits] no matter what settings I pick.

[3] If I change the de-interlaced method while DVBViewer is running it crashes sometimes [the coreavc filter causes the crash] but this does not happen in graphedit. I have emailed you some logs.

[4] I have hundreds of .yuv and .out files created on my root drive, they are 2Mb each so is there a way to disable this debug output?

Cheers,
Nick

BTW, if rapidshare is giving you grief just delete the cookie and change your IP to reset the download limits, there are some other useful tips on upload hosts here:

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/11/rapidshare-yousendit-megaupload-free.html

Revgen

8th June 2006, 19:57

@Betaboy

Alot of people like me upgrade their PC's constantly. It would be a pain to have to go through an activation process.

On top of that 1 software for one computer is kinda harsh. I know that you don't want corporate businesses taking advantage of a $20 piece of software, but you have to understand that CoreAVC right now is used by enthusiasts like myself who own more than 1 comp. For me to pay $60 to use CoreAVC on 3 comps is overpriced. I can buy PowerDVD and get h.264 playback (albeit slower than CoreAVC) and DVD playback for $50. A better solution would be 1 decoder for 3 comps or possibly 4. It should keep the corporate businesses from taking advantage and provide enough leverage for a home enthusiast.

What really puts you guys ahead of Cyberlink and others is your customer service. If something is wrong, you're quicker to solve it than the corporate outfits. People will come around and buy your products if you keep on providing the service that you're doing now. Online activation and harsh licenses put you at a disavantage to the competion IMHO.

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 20:10

thats a mistake BetaBoy,you really should re-think that move,as over the years i'v talking with many amiga/phinixi/Genesi/ non windows x86/PPC developers and companys that wanted to go down that limited online internet registration and just about every one of them found that their sales were far less than they would hope because of it.

the reason is pritty simple , even in the UK, for every machine on the net, there are 100+ more that are not.

i understand as a currently small company, just starting out, you want to maximise your IP potential, but id advise you seriously think about other ways to register the products as well as the net.

the massive buzz around the HD should and indeed currently is, making a really good name for your company and product as we speak, dont spoil that by inforcing net only activation, it will only hurt your coreAVC in both the short term and the longer term, but its your choice.

as regards the one copy per machine, that too could be seen by the customer as a rather harsh move, would you consider a reduced rate for buying several copys for people that have several networked PCs and would assume they could use a copy on all of them, lots of other thoughts, but i can see many, many people thinking twice about using coreAVC after all, even if it is the fastest decoder so far and you have done such a good job of giving the end users what they want and need so far..........

Thx for the compliment.... we'll you really need to look at the larger goals we are reaching for. Unlike the 'past' our concerns are the 'connected' devices and the secure tie-ins to the products and backend devices.

With that being said... the product will have 'some' way of getting on the device... be it via some form of media or other wise.... and we will have an options for that to verify the device.

Specifically on your 'harsh' comment... when you purchase a single PC license for any CoreAVC Edition... it is essentially that... a 'single' license. In the case of AVC the 'cost' for EVERY release we do (initial downloads plus each update downloaded), there is a cost for... so essentially there are no FREE upgrades for our IP license of AVC... if we release 3 updates FREE to our users... we get charged for 3 units... thats just the way it works.

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 20:12

vB']Sorry I missed your replies, my email notifications takes hours to come through for some reason???

The problem TS samples are huge [several Gb's] and I only have 200K upload but I will try and hack the first 20Mb's of each file with a hex editor and upload them as soon as I can.

I have just tested the latest CoreAVC beta and I still can't get this color bug in DVBViewer

Have you contacted Griga to see if the color bug is a DVBViewer issue???

I have a few other observations:

[1] I still can't get 25fps in DVBViewer on single core system but the performance is better and the CPU usage is now more stable [not flicking between 50 & 100%]

[2] The glitching on my dual core system seems to have gone with one exception, it can not cope with vertically scrolling text [like credits] no matter what settings I pick.

[3] If I change the de-interlaced method while DVBViewer is running it crashes sometimes [the coreavc filter causes the crash] but this does not happen in graphedit. I have emailed you some logs.

[4] I have hundreds of .yuv and .out files created on my root drive, they are 2Mb each so is there a way to disable this debug output?

Cheers,
Nick

BTW, if rapidshare is giving you grief just delete the cookie and change your IP to reset the download limits, there are some other useful tips on upload hosts here:

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/11/rapidshare-yousendit-megaupload-free.html
1 - try the new double framerate option
4 - Install 1.1.0.3 till we get 1.1 Final out tonight.

acidsex

8th June 2006, 20:43

Yes, when you purchase a license it is (as it states in the AVC licensing) for (1) PC software.

So what if I decide Id rtaher use my purchased license on my laptop instead of my desktop system? Do you expect me to buy another copy for that reason?

This who online activation stuff really is starting to look a lot like MS. I will say this though, if I had known CoreAVC was moving to this model, I would not have purchased your product to begin with.

I agree with the others and strongly advise Core to re-evaluate itsmodel and plans and to consider those customers you will end up alienating...the ones they supported you from the start. But then again, its ok as long as Core gains new customers and generates new sales right? :devil:

yumcimil

8th June 2006, 20:53

I have to say, having it tied to hardware is pretty disappointing. I purchased the pro version for use on my HTPC in the lounge, but also have it installed on my main PC that acts as a server. To pay $40 just for the ability to occasionally check a downloaded file seems somewhat draconian.

I think people are honest as a whole - perhaps for an example, look at Stardock, with their publication of Galactic Civilizations II? Having anti-piracy measures only ever hurts the legitimate buyers of your software (me, in this case, being unable to easily upgrade my HTPC, or check a file on my server) - the warez kiddies will always crack something they want badly enough.

I'm not sure if it would have prevented me buying the product in the first place, but I certainly didn't see anything about phone-home hardware activation when I initially purchased. It definitely seems like a slap in the face for the people who have supported you from the beginning. Please, I urge you, reconsider this approach.

Eretria-chan

8th June 2006, 21:14

So what if I decide Id rtaher use my purchased license on my laptop instead of my desktop system? Do you expect me to buy another copy for that reason?

This who online activation stuff really is starting to look a lot like MS. I will say this though, if I had known CoreAVC was moving to this model, I would not have purchased your product to begin with.

I agree with the others and strongly advise Core to re-evaluate itsmodel and plans and to consider those customers you will end up alienating...the ones they supported you from the start. But then again, its ok as long as Core gains new customers and generates new sales right? :devil:
I definetly agree 130% on this issue. Licenses are stupid and only hurts us.
Btw, I have an ftp server for temporary files is you don't want to use free file sharing services. If anyone is interested that is...

Jay Bee

8th June 2006, 21:35

Can I unregister on one machine and reregister on another?
Can I upgrade my hardware?
Can somebody link to the current license agreement? (I can't find it)

Can someone translate this:
...you really need to look at the larger goals we are reaching for. Unlike the 'past' our concerns are the 'connected' devices and the secure tie-ins to the products and backend devices.
I hope this hardware/internet unlocking scheme will not cause CoreAVC more trouble than it's worth. For example a tiny bug in the unlocking code will piss off a lot of legitimate users. I've seen it happen to other projects. Remember, keeping your customers happy is more important than fighting the pirates. The protection system will be cracked anyway so the pirates won't really care. Paying customers will.

ChronoCross

8th June 2006, 21:46

I would imagine they have something in place for most of these instances.

For example:
Using it on both a laptop and desktop only 2 machines would be tied to your account through the online system. by having it tied to an account they can prevent 100's of users from using the same account and still provide for flexability.

Things such as hardware upgrades would be comperable situation as you could simply unlicense one computer and readd your new configuration.

If done right online licensing can be well recieved and provide a greater level of support.

Jay Bee

8th June 2006, 21:55

If done right online licensing can be well recieved and provide a greater level of support.

Yes, but it's the IF I'm worried about. ;)
But let's not get ourselves all worked up until we can read the licensing agreement for 1.1.

foxyshadis

8th June 2006, 22:44

so essentially there are no FREE upgrades for our IP license of AVC... if we release 3 updates FREE to our users... we get charged for 3 units... thats just the way it works.
This is the unfortunate part, it's not Core's fault that MPEG LA requires fees for every machine. They would have to negotiate a special license with the MPEG LA IP committee & lawyers, and I'm sure that wouldn't be fun or cheap, if possible at all. But the MPEG license fee is only 1-2% afaik, so it surely wouldn't hurt to have a scheme of cheaper add-a-licenses to go with the main offering?

BetaBoy

8th June 2006, 22:51

Thx CC... what we are really are talking about here is two different schemes atm...

DS Codecs vs CorePlayer/CoreTunes.... Codecs will not be 'that' restrictive like Jay Bee mentioned.. a hardware upgrade does not effect the license.

Transfering to another PC can be done easily as well as registering an offline device. Yes... we are bound to have issues, we recognize that and to be honest i'd rather work them out with now then with CorePlayer in 8 weeks when alot more people will be registering ;-)