CoreCodec / CoreAVC ranting (un)official thread

[Inventive Software]

Thought I'd take responsibility and try and separate this discussion and primarily trouble-shooting thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=104277) from the rants and the bitching that it's received of late due to it's practises.

So feel free to rant away, but from now on, keep it here. Any in the other thread, provided it's not trying to sort a particular issue, and Bond'll have your head on a stick. ;) Trouble-shooting issues most likely won't get solved here, so try the other thread.

@Bond: feel free to split rants that aren't exactly relevant in the other thread to this one. :)

[Sirber]

ramble ramble ramble!

Activation!!!! :devil: ;)

[Sharktooth]

yep... the major issue is now activation... can it be "fixed" (just by removing it)?

[Sirber]

yep... the major issue is now activation... can it be "fixed" (just by removing it)?
Unfortunatly, no.

Installer comes with a "key". The key, as well as other info about the PC, is sent to the server, then if valid, the server returns a serial that will only work on that PC. So, yes you can remove the activation if you already have the serial, but it won't work on other machines.

[kurt]

not much userfriendly I would say...

[SeeMoreDigital]

Out of interest..... Does anybody know if other "pay ware" manufactures (who's products just happen to contain an MPEG-4 AVC direct-show decoder filter), have been forced into implementing such an unuser friendly registration system?


Cheers

[Sirber]

like nero? :)

[GmorG McRoth]

like nero? :)

Nero uses online activation now?

[3ngel]

How at this point starting to considering others H264 decoders (even at pay)? :p
This could be an interesting matter: considering from an objective point of view, quality and performances (and activation methods) of other available directshow h264 filters (i know pheraps this has been done in the sticky but a discussion is another thing).

[SeeMoreDigital]

like nero? :)Indeed... there was a time when Nero's decoder filters could be extracted, re-registered and used with other software media players!

However, I seem to remember Nero prevented this practice long before their AVC codec was launched...


Cheers

[clsid]

Out of interest..... Does anybody know if other "pay ware" manufactures (who's products just happen to contain an MPEG-4 AVC direct-show decoder filter), have been forced into implementing such an unuser friendly registration system?CoreCodec has not been forced in any way by MPEG LA to use an activation system. Afaik other decoder don't use activation either. CoreCodec chose to implement activation to try to prevent piracy.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=838063#post838063

[GmorG McRoth]

I wonder how Mainconcept avc decoder will be protected.

[SeeMoreDigital]

CoreCodec has not been forced in any way by MPEG LA to use an activation system. Afaik other decoder don't use activation either. CoreCodec chose to implement activation to try to prevent piracy.I felt sure Dan stated quite some time ago that registration had been forced upon them (Core) by some regulatory body....

[Sharktooth]

that's BS...

[Seb.26]

A new thread only about CoreAvc activation ? great ... :D :p

Just my 2cts : Why CoreCodec don't add a special release of CoreAvc, this release won't have activation, but a hardware usb dongle ?! ... IMO, the cost will be less than 10$ ( if CoreAvc don't make money on it of course ... )

Does somebody is ready to pay this 10$ to forget activation process ?!

Good idea or stupid one ?!

:cool:

[GmorG McRoth]

A new thread only about CoreAvc activation ? great ... :D :p

Just my 2cts : Why CoreCodec don't add a special release of CoreAvc, this release won't have activation, but a hardware usb dongle ?! ... IMO, the cost will be less than 10$ ( if CoreAvc don't make money on it of course ... )

Does somebody is ready to pay this 10$ to forget activation process ?!

Good idea or stupid one ?!

:cool:

I think hardware dongle would pumped price much more than 10$ and add postal costs (you can't email hardware).

[Seb.26]

I think hardware dongle would pumped price much more than 10$ and add postal costs (you can't email hardware).
For the price of the dongle : wrong if they want quantites >10000 pcs, but you are right for the postal cost ...

This was just my 2cents ...
( Since some times, I promise myself to don't post anything in any CoreAvc thread ... )

[Sirber]

What about users with no free USB port? like me :D
Also, every software with dungles has been cracked anyway.

[GmorG McRoth]

Every hardware dongle I seen is a pass through device (you can attach any other device to port on back of dongle).

[SeeMoreDigital]

that's BS...Jeez,

If this is the case, no wonder so many people are unhappy!

I guess like many people, I don't mind paying for CoreAVC but do mind not being able to install it on more than one PC.

By-the-way. How do non network/internet connected lap-top users get on?


Cheers

[Sirber]

By-the-way. How do non network/internet connected lap-top users get on?Activation will fail, so no installation.

I read somewhere Core are working on a way to make it work offline.

[bob0r]

yep... the major issue is now activation... can it be "fixed" (just by removing it)?

Yes it can be fixed, but other then the old days, we now have companies pay us not to come with a fix, and when it still gets fixed, we double benefit :D

[deets]

im gonna chip in :D

I totally understand wanting to protect yourself and anything you have created, but by making the legal paying folk jump through hoops is not the way to go.

you must punish the pirates, not make it harder for those who want to be legal, however hard (impossible) it might be to actually get the pirates.

im seriously thinking of going to apple because I had so much grief with XP activation, always having to phone up to install and being grilled.

I would love to buy coreavc as its a great product, but while im going to have to jump through hoops to use a product i legally bought, i just wont bother :( so one customer lost due to over protective measures, how can that be good business.

[crypto]

Out of interest..... Does anybody know if other "pay ware" manufactures (who's products just happen to contain an MPEG-4 AVC direct-show decoder filter), have been forced into implementing such an unuser friendly registration system?


Nobody is forced to use activation on the codec, not even Core although your question implies this.

CyberLink H.264/AVC Decoder - no restrictions, no activation
InterVideo Video Decoder (WinDVD8 w/ h.264) - no restrictions, no activation

The discusion currently going on, is a perfect case study. A few fake arguments are given and people actually believe drm/activation is a good thing. They happily give up their rights. They even argument in way as if they were Core employees and attack users who are not totally brain washed like themselves.

Me and my fellow developers are currently finding ways to add DRM to all products, freeware and payware to make all the customers happy. Doing so, customers have "advantages" and the can be sure they get updates for free, they would otherwise have gotten in form of bugfixes. :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Nobody is forced to use activation on the codec, not even Core although your question implies this.Thanks for confirming this ;)

[CruNcher]

Me and my fellow developers are currently finding ways to add DRM to all products, freeware and payware to make all the customers happy. Doing so, customers have "advantages" and the can be sure they get updates for free, they would otherwise have gotten in form of bugfixes.

Sorry but if i hear this i could get sick, no customer want's it it's forced upon them (the content provider are the primary buisness who want this and ISV like you support it) the only problem is that customers and also ISV and IHV don't have the guts/will to abondon such products and services that come with it like entertainment products and don't realize that every service that once was free now becomes payware and that companies start to fight with it's own systems against each other and all that because it just became technology wise possible, it's not only about protection (that argument is complete BS) it's about creating new markets and restrictions for customers and you are a customer yourselv, more and more people lose the possibility to take part in our culture our society is going through a new change that for sure in some years will be seen as a big big mistake we done again comparable to the mistakes we done in the past like atomic energy now we starting research into fusion energy but we allready knew long before that implosion is better then explosion. We allways gonna do the same mistakes over and over again it's somehow in our genetics see what happens on our world compare it with History and you see everything is happening again and im sure if we do to much mistakes again Earth is also gonna do another cold reboot.

And about CoreCodec Politics sure the Activation is not a nice thing, but these other companies you list here have the power to Cross Finance the Decoders. CoreCodec doesn't seem to have that yet as a Startup so they need someway to gather this and that could come from their SDK licensing but for now it's not possible im sure Dan is doing everything possible to try makeing CoreAVC first less expensive and later free (for average joe) and the Activation thing is one of those he's forced upon by the industry hes playing in now (Mpeg-La Deal) to give customers better conditions Mpeg-La want's a gurantee that every sold license is bound to 1 PC else they would wan't money again for every update that's being downloaded and CoreCodec has to keep track of that at least this is how i heared it fly by. And yes this is also again a new forceing upon on us and it will become standard in the end sooner or later Software won't run anymore on our machines but on the Internet (GRID) and we have to pay per use/time for it's usage this is how our forced IT future looks like.

[crypto]

@cruncher
Easy. I hope you noticed the smiley on my statement. It is just a joke about those who are happy with drm/activation.

For the record. I am against drm and you will never see such things in software I write. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[3ngel]

They even argument in way as if they were Core employees and attack users who are not totally brain washed like themselves.

You hit the point :p

Unfortunately Core don't hit the point. The only customers they'll remain will be those on the quote above.
Not much. But that's a their problem.

As soon as a new company will appear with a good decoder, Core will vanish in the deep nothing they came from.

[Inventive Software]

@3ngel: That's if anything can match or beat the software decoding speed of CoreAVC. ;)

I say b*****ks to people who moan about not having GPU support in 1.2. I've said it before in the previous thread, but probably not made it clear enough. With alcohol in my system, I'll have another go.

They stated that "GPU support to be added at a later date." They didn't state the date, therefore you cannot bitch and complain that they didn't have GPU support in 1.2, cause they didn't say it was gonna be in 1.2. It might be in 1.2.1, 1.3, 1.6, or 1.999 for all you short-sighted people care.

GPU support isn't necessary for people with patience and Pentium D CPUs. Anything lower and yes, you may be better off with another solution, but as far as I'm concerned, CoreAVC can handle software decoding of 1080i streams absolutely fine on dual-core systems and some single-core systems (I say some, cause if it's older than about 2 years, you've got problems). With the exception of some particular interlaced streams (BBC I'm eagle-eyeing you) CoreAVC is fine and dandy with whatever AVC you throw at it! :D

My $0.02, which is worth about £0.01 in todays climate, so add together my previous comment in this thread and you get £0.02! My dig at the pound-dollar rate. ;):D

[Sirber]

They stated that "GPU support to be added at a later date." They didn't state the date, therefore you cannot bitch and complain that they didn't have GPU support in 1.2, cause they didn't say it was gonna be in 1.2. It might be in 1.2.1, 1.3, 1.6, or 1.999 for all you short-sighted people care.Took 9 months from 1.1 to 1.2. So sure we had hope for GPU support in 1.2 :p

[Foreigner999]

And about CoreCodec Politics sure the Activation is not a nice thing, but these other companies you list here have the power to Cross Finance the Decoders. CoreCodec doesn't seem to have that yet as a Startup so they need someway to gather this and that could come from their SDK licensing but for now it's not possible im sure Dan is doing everything possible to try makeing CoreAVC first less expensive and later free (for average joe)

I don't know Dan, (betaboy?) but I don't think that move has anything to do with intelligent moves on the part of CC. I think it probably has more to do with the reality that thier customers are going to generally be moving to higher end machines in 1.5 years time. So they will most definetly be facing a growing problem of a decoder that when speed comes into the equation there wont be much marketing pull for users in that time.

For those who will jump on me and say there are still people with pentium 2's around who need 1080p avc playback, I think if they havent spent 300$ on a cheap box-only unit i dont think they will be too eager to spend 15$ on a codec. Just my opinion.

and the Activation thing is one of those he's forced upon by the industry hes playing in now (Mpeg-La Deal) to give customers better conditions Mpeg-La want's a gurantee that every sold license is bound to 1 PC else they would wan't money again for every update that's being downloaded and CoreCodec has to keep track of that at least this is how i heared it fly by. And yes this is also again a new forceing upon on us and it will become standard in the end sooner or later Software won't run anymore on our machines but on the Internet (GRID) and we have to pay per use/time for it's usage this is how our forced IT future looks like.

Companies may change thier buisness models but that doesn't mean people will change to their models. Anyone who has been restricted in one way or another from a product they have bought in the past and forced into a lease situation now can _probably_ agree that it wasn't a pleasant experience. Consumers dont like unpleasant and just like children, they will avoid future encounters with restrictions.

I wonder if CC has had a rise in sales or a nosedive?:rolleyes:

P.S. It's tied to 1 OS rather than one 1 PC. So I can't run a dual boot with win98 and WinXp without buying a second license for 1 PC. No reformats too without a new license.

[CruNcher]

@crypto
sorry for this misunderstanding but the normal smilie really made it look like you meant it as you said it again sorry it didn't looked like sarcasm to me this way :(

@Sirber
eh 9 months 1.1 was released in june that aren't 9 months maybe you meant from 1.0 to 1.2, but anyway even that is not strange they are a fairly new player on the market and prepareing alot of stuff so resources on 1 project may be not enough yet why you don't give em some time to establish themselves be fair the activation thing was preanounced by BetaBoy long time ago ok maybe not everyone saw it or overlooked it and surely they could have announced it in a wider way what they gonna do and i agree that didn't happen obvously now everyone is mad @ them but just wait and see what happens in the coming months and how this get resolved or not then you can still decide to hate them :).

@Foreigner999
CoreAVC is very interesting for Semi Proffesional Applications and all kinds of handheld devices without hardware acceleration to license because of it's speed, features and less energy consumption if the encoder is gonna be @ the same level even more licensees will be found and then sooner or later CoreAVC will be freed from it's chain (keep in mind im not speaking for CoreCodec Inc) i just guess here

For example im working with Sony Vegas with Mainconcepts Decoder rendering speed (decoding) for H264 HDV is @ like 5 fps with CoreAVC it's arround 11 fps that is a big win and Sonys customer definately would like to have that :P

[Seb.26]

For example im working with Sony Vegas with Mainconcepts Decoder rendering speed (decoding) for H264 HDV is @ like 5 fps with CoreAVC it's arround 11 fps that is a big win and Sonys customer definately would like to have that :P
It's definitly true that CoreCodec AVC is a fast software decoder ...
I thing everybody here know that ...
( And in any case, devs can be proud for this part of their work... )

but everybody here also know it's not the matter ... :mad:

[3ngel]

@3ngel: That's if anything can match or beat the software decoding speed of CoreAVC.

You know? I've read around (pheraps on this same forum), that there is already a faster solution (even if not decoder-alone) that is something about WinDvd (or it was PowerDVD?) decoding engine that i read was faster than Core one.
But i've not tested myself.

[Seb.26]

You know? I've read around (pheraps on this same forum), that there is already a faster solution (even if not decoder-alone) that is something about WinDvd (or it was PowerDVD?) decoding engine that i read was faster than Core one.
But i've not tested myself.
Do you remember if it was with or without hardware support ?! ;)

[CruNcher]

Yes Cyberlink is faster Hardware wise but they also cheat (or optimized especialy for High Bitrate HD-DVD and Blue-Ray) in quality (no deblock and bad chroma upsampleing) isn't as nice as it could be all this play a role in decoding efficiency you can't just say hey look it's the fastest so it's the best like many Internet Magazines do it @ the moment, it's the wrong way. You have to take the whole thing and find how well it's balanced and for wich purpose.

[3ngel]

Sincerely, from my experience the chrome upsampling problem is related more on the output video mode (overlay or renderless and colorspace) than to decoder setup.
For example i see the chroma problem with any decoder in YV12 mode, but the problem disappear in RGB32 mode with any decoder.

[CruNcher]

3ngel ther'e quality differences between the way the upsampling is done by the decoders the best quality/Speed ratio @ the moment you get with Mainconcepts Decoder but only with Hardware acceleration on, in Software you have less quality i think Mainconcept/Elecard did that because of the extra Speed lose in Software Mode.
Also FFdshows extra quality Upsampling has the same quality but CoreAVC and Cyberlink don't have this quality they look more pixelated on edges.

[3ngel]

As i've said i've not tested specifically the h264 decoder-related matter. I was talking of a general experience.
But sooner or later i'll try the Mainconcept decoder (if available)

[bob0r]

Coreavc, mainconcept or whatever paid software.
In situations like a H.264, they can only make money in a short period of time.
I am talking about a set standards for HD TV, 1920x1080 won't be replaced in many years, so only now can you make money out of it.
You think the new CPUs that come out in 2007, require even any multi core decoder to decode H.264 1080i/p/MBAFF?

Its just smart to make money out of it now, we all should be glad there is an opensource decoder at all, else we would really be f'd!

[Sharktooth]

i was thinking to buy coreavc but NOW im happy with OS decoders (libavcodec/ffdshow).
after the problems i had with M$ and winxp activation i wont buy another software with crappy activation and hope everyone will think twice before buying that...

[Px]

CyberLink H.264/AVC Decoder - no restrictions, no activation
Really? No activation? Are you sure? ;)

[easy2Bcheesy]

My media PC is out of WiFi range. So essentially I can only run the old version, which bombs out on MCE2005 all the time, and I can't install the new version because it requires an internet connection to activate.

Core's customer relations suck donkey balls too. I've sent several emails to several different addresses and never had a reply.

I bought the Pro version 1.1, which doesn't work and I'm sitting on an upgrade I cannot use.

I could relocate my media PC closer to the router and install the new codec I suppose, but what happens when I move to a new media PC? Do I have to buy CoreAVC again?

This whole activation nonsense basically means that now I'm more inclined to buy a faster CPU for a new media PC that won't need their optimised codec. I'll get all the benefits of a faster computer and can use a freeware decoder.

[deets]

its crazy isnt it. the logic is messed up. in order to protect their product, they hinder the legal paying user and end up losing sales.

I have no problem paying for software that works, but as soon as im treated like a thief and made to jump through hoops, i resent the whole darn process and dont come back.

shame as i would have gladly bought it just to show them some support for bringing out a good bit of software.

[Episode]

Wait, it needs to be activated every time you use it?! I thought it was just the installation process that needed internet connection.

[ChronoCross]

Wait, it needs to be activated every time you use it?! I thought it was just the installation process that needed internet connection.

no. only on initial install.

[Inventive Software]

How the hell is this thread still going? Never thought activation could stir up such ranting! :D

[ChronoCross]

How the hell is this thread still going? Never thought activation could stir up such ranting! :D

human nature. people love to bitch when things don't go their way.

[Sharktooth]

ppl love to bitch if they paid and they didnt get what they wanted.
i my case, i bitch coz i waited for a versio with lossless decoding and they added activation in that version.

[MacAddict]

I honestly dont know what world you people live in but DRM is here to stay. I fail to understand why you peeps are moaning and groaning for weeks now that in all likely hood will be in most software packages the next 1-2 years! Anyone install Acrobat 8 lately? Should we open a cry baby thread for that one as well? It's hear to stay for obvious reasons, might as well get use to it, painful as it might be.