G'bye 3rd Party ASP/AVC Filters in WMP/MCE on Win7?

[clsid]

If by GraphEdit you mean custom graphs, then no, I mean something more simplistic. The average PC user is an idiot compared to most users on this forum, so it should be relatively easy to understand. Something like choosing between filter A, B and C for decoding format Y. Kind of like the merit system of DirectShow, but simpler.

[fastplayer]

withinwindows.com
Windows 7 to support third-party codecs… like all other Windows versions (http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/04/02/windows-7-to-support-third-party-codecs-like-all-other-windows-versions/)
As we move toward the release of Windows 7, we have worked to add more codecs and file types to allow for a better user experience. We also allow Microsoft experiences to use codecs and other format technologies from third-party companies, just as we always have. Third party applications can use the Microsoft codecs or their own. Microsoft does not restrict the use of third-party codecs. – Microsoft Spokesperson

[clsid]

That quote talks only about third party applications. Microsoft's own players will use the native codecs whenever they can.

[CruNcher]

Clsid no real problem most third party ISVs don't want to use WMP :) and a lot started allready to protect their filters from the normal Windows Directshow Chain since some time now virtualy every big Vendors Filters can't be accessed anymore so no Dshow Hell anymore for Arcsoft, Corel, Cyberlink and Nero :). The Windows Multimedia System becomes more closed now everyone is doing his own Chain that can't be interrupted anymore (everyone goes MPC style on demand loading and mplayer enclosed systems) with so also less support problems in the future, sure it takes away user possibilities to decide which Application to use but that's the price to pay after all these years. And most probably Windows 7 wont be released with WMP anyways in the EU. I don't see good times for ffdshow though also in the terms that it missed the GPU move so it will become slowly forgotten i think over the time, for normal playback purposes @ least i see some use of it in combined (GPU/CPU) editing though.

[clsid]

Windows 7 will include WMP (also in the EU). Whoever told you otherwise was false.

[Esurnir]

Windows 7 will include WMP (also in the EU). Whoever told you otherwise was false.

Well what's said is that people will be able to uninstall it if I remember correctly.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Windows 7 will include WMP (also in the EU). Whoever told you otherwise was false.

Well, in the EU they must offer the "N" versions of Windows, which do not ship with WMP. Don't think that will change with Windows 7.
Anyway, people who bought that version still can download WMP from Microsoft web-site.

Also I read that Windows 7 finally will allow the user to uninstall InternetExplorer and WMP/WMC. That won't be limited to "N" versions, I think.
But only the executables will be uninstalled, as other apps may still require some components of IE/WMP.

[clsid]

The "N" versions have been around since XP. However, there is hardly anyone that uses them. All major OEMs ship the regular Windows versions with their hardware.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

The "N" versions have been around since XP. However, there is hardly anyone that uses them. All major OEMs ship the regular Windows versions with their hardware.

At least the new uninstall capability will be available to everyone.

So the workflow for Windows 7 users will be: Uninstall WMP/WMC, install MediaPlayerClassic + ffdshow-tryouts, done :)

[lexor]

At least the new uninstall capability will be available to everyone.

So the workflow for Windows 7 users will be: Uninstall WMP/WMC, install MediaPlayerClassic + ffdshow-tryouts, done :)

Except the people who want media centre... there really is nothing better for Windows.

[clsid]

You assume that everybody likes MPC. I know for a fact that many people actually prefer WMP (despite its many flaws). It is still the most commonly used media player on Windows. Also the discussion in this topic is not about uninstalling WMP or using alternative players. Its about getting things to play properly in Microsoft's own players, preferably with the ability to use third party decoders and post-processing filters.

[Snowknight26]

I wonder if benwaggoner has any updates about the issue.

[avivahl]

What about SUBTITLES in WMP? Will I not be able to add another transform filter (e.g. VSFilter) to a working graph when using WMP?

[clsid]

Support for VSFilter has improved in the pre-RC builds compared to the older builds. Subtitle support is one of the things I complained about to zachdms (another MS engineer here on the forum). He said they they would do their best to improve on that area. I assume DXVA is one of the reasons why intermediate filters are blocked in certain situations.

VSFilter now works with .avi files with MPEG-4 content on Win7. It also works for embedded subtitles in .mkv files if using the VSFilter workaround in Haali's splitter.

[EuropeanMan]

Just wondering why noone mentioned VLC as a media player ... in your experiences/opinions what do you think of VLC?

I love it alongside MPC...hated MCE/WMP always

[anrque]

Just wondering why noone mentioned VLC as a media player ... in your experiences/opinions what do you think of VLC?

I love it alongside MPC...hated MCE/WMP always

The conversation is revolving around MSFT not allowing 3rd party filters in the DXVA chain for WMP and Mediacenter. VLC does not use directshow, all codecs are built in. So this does not apply here.

[EuropeanMan]

Ok, I understand the conversation and have read all the posts...BUT if VLC has all the codecs built in, why even worry about other media players under W7? Why wouldn't one just use VLC then and not worry about the other media players that couldn't access 3rd party codecs?

[Eragon4ever]

Because may people (myself included) don't like VLC. And that is put mildly.

[Leak]

VLC is good for downloading streams.

But I couldn't for the life of me watch anything that's longer than a few minutes using that clunky interface, let alone a DVD...

np: Autechre - Djarum (Anti EP)

[albain]

Also VLC (as well as MPC on some points) does not fit for many uses :
- Having a media (music, videos, photos) library
- Having a HTPC software all in one featured and managed by a remote control
- Subtitles management less advanced than FFDShow or MPC filter
- Postprocessing less advanced and customizable (with presets) as FFDShow

[BetaBoy]

When this hit a week+ ago I was asked by a few press ppl to comment and decided it was better to wait. But while I was at CTIA I had the chance to talk to a few industry ppl about this situation some more and we spent alot of time noting MS's quote, as it did not help them at all:
"We also allow Microsoft experiences to use codecs and other format technologies from third-party companies, just as we always have. Third party applications can use the Microsoft codecs or their own. Microsoft does not restrict the use of third-party codecs. What about MF support for ASP or AVC filters within WMP and MCE? I mean that's what this is all about anyway, right?

So while the non-clarity and speculation continues till we see an RC/RTM.... I think that MS is now taking notes from Apple and potentially playing the 'closed ecosystem' hand in this case, hence the birth of MF but still keeping Directshow around to stay any antitrust concerns. Now that would suck as albain noted for WMP and MCE users. But if left 'as-is' by MS.... this could open the door to a new breed of applications to take their place.

[CruNcher]

Then be more innovative do more buzz and create better user experiences then they do :) a lot of ISVs (especially those that only sell codecs) have no other chance to survive as their codecs will be on the 2nd place in Microsoft own bundled products in the future what would you read out of the comment otherwise ?
Sure ISVs will be able to use their own developed codecs and stuff but only from within their Product running on Windows though Microsoft is going to prioritize their technology in their Applications and only leave the option for ISVs if they have no solution for the playback scenario in MF it's easy to read that out of the Microsoft statement (and they could anytime enlarge this now to for example post processing filters), if it comes to that it will fire some ice again but instead of fighting why not just create innovative products that people would like to use more then Microsofts own :). Ofcourse Microsoft can make their stuff very attractive with shitloads of hidden APIs from other ISVs that allow certain functions to work more efficient or less problematic then what the ISV can do (or have to pay a huge amount of money for it). If you followed Microsofts own development carefully you especially realize that their own Products are more enhanced then the previous generation also the times it took for a Microsoft Research development to hit Microsofts product cycle seems to have been lowered rapidly for example see how long it took them to fire up things like Expression,Silverlight,SmoothHD,Photosynth or Surface from Research to final (also of course with buying other ISVs again) definitely a lot changed over the years @ Microsofts own bureaucracy which is also not really surprising. Also seeing that MSR is now almost allways involved in any public show Microsoft does shows that they care more bringing Research faster into their Products and also publicly show them off and be proud see Surface or the next Surface Generation their Sensor research or recently buying 3DV Systems which technology will also become part of Surface i can promise you :)

[73ChargerFan]

Windows 7 RC has been released to OEMs, but it isn't in the wild yet.

[BetaBoy]

Thats the first news i've heard of it.... but I did get a tweet saying the the RC will change nothing and the MS is sticking with the way MF works for ASP/AVC filters in WMP and MCE. Guess we'll all see soon enough.

[clsid]

It will go public on May 5th.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/04/18/windows-7-rc-coming-to-msdntechnet-soon-public-may-5

[benwaggoner]

I wonder if benwaggoner has any updates about the issue.
Nothing more than what's already being discussed here.

Microsoft's own apps will use Microsoft's own decoders when they're available for a given file. Codec packs have caused a lot of problems for a lot of users, and by providing high quality 1st party codecs in-box, Microsoft's 1st party media apps won't get messed up in hard-to-support ways.

But yes, anyone writing their own app can use whatever they want.

I wasn't at all involved in any of that decision process, but it makes sense to me.

[clsid]

It is great that MS now has a monopoly on causing multimedia playback problems for its users. And yes, I have already seen the new MS decoders fail.

For those who wish to use ffdshow or CoreAVC as their preferred decoder in WMP and Media Center, a hack can be found here:
http://www.hack7mc.com/2009/04/replacing-the-default-dtvdvd-decoder-without-breaking-live-tv-playback.html

This will work only for DirectShow playback, for example for .mkv files. It won't have an effect on files played though Media Foundation, such as most .m2ts, .mp4 and .mov files.

[me7]

Microsoft's own apps will use Microsoft's own decoders when they're available for a given file. Codec packs have caused a lot of problems for a lot of users, and by providing high quality 1st party codecs in-box, Microsoft's 1st party media apps won't get messed up in hard-to-support ways.

But yes, anyone writing their own app can use whatever they want.

I wasn't at all involved in any of that decision process, but it makes sense to me.

It would make more sense if they included a "safe mode" that locks out foreign codecs and an "advanced mode" that works like we are used to. If some codec pack causes problems, you can always revert to "safe mode".
Easy to support, user friendly and offers advanced options.

[Richardw322]

Also VLC (as well as MPC on some points) does not fit for many uses :
- Having a media (music, videos, photos) library
- Having a HTPC software all in one featured and managed by a remote control
- Subtitles management less advanced than FFDShow or MPC filter
- Postprocessing less advanced and customizable (with presets) as FFDShow
:angry::angry:
You hit the nail on the head for me, that's just why I want to use ffdshow. What do you use for a media library? I use GBPVR, and it still overrides my choice of decoder. I think GBPVR uses Media Player for playback. :(

[Schrade]

Looks like DivX did something:

http://labs.divx.com/mkvwin7preview
What's in this preview?

This technology preview introduces support for DivX Plus HD video in applications using the Microsoft Media Foundation, a new framework introduced in Windows 7. The package includes native versions of the DivX MKV Demux and the DivX AAC Decoder, as well as shell extensions that provide thumbnail images and detailed file information for files with either ".divx" (DivX 6) or ".mkv" (DivX 7) extensions for an enhanced experience.

Why is this cool?

Although Windows 7 maintains support for established frameworks such as DirectShow, there was no other solution for rendering content in an MKV container through the Media Foundation framework - until today!

The advantages of enabling MKV file support in the Media Foundation framework include the ability to use hardware acceleration for H.264 video decoding via the system H.264 decoder (where supported), as well as adding support for serving both DivX and DivX Plus HD video through Windows Media Center Extenders and the Windows Media Network Sharing Service for UPNP devices. However, be aware that transcoding creates an additional CPU load on the server, some loss of quality and potentially reduces picture resolution.


http://labs.divx.com/files/divx-plus-on-win-7_01.png
DivX Tech Preview enables thumbnails, playback, and detailed information for MKV files.

[benwaggoner]

It is great that MS now has a monopoly on causing multimedia playback problems for its users. And yes, I have already seen the new MS decoders fail.
Did you file a bug report for that?

[clsid]

No, but I did report a few other bugs/flaws which got fixed.

[73ChargerFan]

It is great that MS now has a monopoly

Did you file a bug report for that?

I think IBM did a few years back, but it didn't have much effect. :sly:

[BetaBoy]

Looks like DivX did something:


I'm gonna play nice with DivX's tech preview only because it spreads MKV and we are all for that. But other then that, DivX's attempt is nothing more then a continuation of a hack/workaround that MS themselves provided to us on the Matroska Mailing list: See the thread starting with: http://lists.matroska.org/pipermail/matroska-devel/2009-March/003485.html

More specifically this still does _not_ allow you to use any third party AVC/AAC decoders within Media Foundation/Win7.... and imho is not a solution at all. Microsoft needs to come up with a better solution then this, and if we see this right... it looks like it maybe a battle for MKV with DivX/Haali splitters although I am sure DivX would argue it the other way in regards to just supporting their eco-system.

We do not want to add a hack support for just MKV without the ability to support other codecs in MF!? Fundamentally this is what Matroska and the Haali splitter are all about and why we created them!

Thoughts anyone?

[SquallMX]

Is this the reason why on Windows 7 7100 x64 when i use AviSynth "DirectShowSource" Microsoft decodec is always used instead of FFDShow?, the only solution i found was to delete the DLL using Ubuntu since Windows don't let me do it.

:thanks:

[benwaggoner]

Is this the reason why on Windows 7 7100 x64 when i use AviSynth "DirectShowSource" Microsoft decodec is always used instead of FFDShow?, the only solution i found was to delete the DLL using Ubuntu since Windows don't let me do it.

My understanding is that any app can specify which decoder to use for a particular codec.

So, perhaps this is a feature request for AVISynth to be able to specify which one is used.

Which would be a highly awesome feature for tracking down and demoing the differences between decoder output...

I like the word "decodec" :) - working on my book the last bit I've struggled to find a quick way to distinguish between "codec that's an encoder" "codec that's a decoder" and "tool that's an encoder".

[SquallMX]

I like the word "decodec" :) - working on my book the last bit I've struggled to find a quick way to distinguish between "codec that's an encoder" "codec that's a decoder" and "tool that's an encoder".

:helpful:, sorry my bad :p.

Thank you for the Answer :thanks::thanks::thanks:.

[kemuri-_9]

I like the word "decodec" :) - working on my book the last bit I've struggled to find a quick way to distinguish between "codec that's an encoder" "codec that's a decoder" and "tool that's an encoder".

doesn't codec stand for coder/decoder already?

so codec should denote that it does both encoding and decoding
where as encoder and decoder should denote only having that single role.

[squid_80]

My understanding is that any app can specify which decoder to use for a particular codec.

So, perhaps this is a feature request for AVISynth to be able to specify which one is used.

Which would be a highly awesome feature for tracking down and demoing the differences between decoder output...
Build a graph in graphedit using the decoders you want, remove the renderer, save the .grf file and load it in a script using directshowsource.

[JK1974]

You see, lots of users wind up with all kinds of codec packs installed, and who the heck knows what might get called for a particular codec...

[...]

It's a goal of Win7 to have much broader built-in support for media files, so hopefully there will be much less need for 3rd party decoders for common technologies.

Are you really sure that the codec hell is caused by codec packs only?

I don´t use any codec pack, instead I actually get e.g. "MainConcept (Adobe2) MPEG Decoder", "Canopus HQ Decoder", "Cyberlink Video/SP Decoder", "Cyberlink Video/SP Decoder (PDVD9)", "MainConcept (Demo) MPEG-2 Video Decoder", "MainConcept MPEG Video Decoder" etc. I currently don´t have the Nero and the InterVideo codecs installed, but to face the truth: All this has been installed by commercial (video) applications. And this will not chance with Windows 7.

So I think more that it is the fault of the 3rd party vendors and their wish to make their codec the system´s number one. And this will not change with the new architecture - instead you will block the open source codecs like ffdshow that might finally cause even less problems.

And maybe the new approach ignores codecs like the ones above if they are installed on Windows 7, but who guarantees that the windows replacement really works in all the cases? I can remember discussions some years ago when people tried to decode h264 streams with Avisynths DirectShowSource and had problems because the Cyberlink codecs did not return the actual frame number or timecode (?) correctly.

[DigitAl56K]

and if we see this right... it looks like it maybe a battle for MKV with DivX/Haali splitters

We don't do that now (in fact the exact opposite, our DShow filter installs with lower merit than Haali), and I hope that the MF framework won't put us in that position in future either. I personally haven't looked into the framework extensively yet.

[BetaBoy]

DigitAl56K... sure your merit is lower. I'm not knocking your efforts with Matroska for the most part (ok... on some level I am with the MKV work around). We think what you have done is the right thing considering the industry switch to AVC and your need for a container you can make work for you instead of against you. That's was the reason we created Matroska in the first place. What we see potentially happening though is MS might end up creating their own splitter solution for MF/Matroska because of the demand and then they wipe the need to not add third party decoders to MF.

But I think a better solution is a to have a MF certification process to ensure the quality of any decoder or splitter that could be added to the chain. But this also poses some real world questions on how to do this and the rules that decoders would have to abide by.... and I'm not sure MS (or all of us) want to go down that road.... but if that's what it takes.

[DigitAl56K]

My personal opinion is that Microsoft should not be in the business or locking people out of their own computers. I do not like the pains you have to go through to install unsigned drivers in Vista 64, for example. I think when it gets to the point that an end user is not able to easily install their preferred software for support of a media particular format then things have gone too far. MS have already had anti-trust problems in Europe due to bundling of WMP alone. A certification process for third-party decoders just to gain platform support would be a bit much and I would prefer not to see Microsoft move in that direction.

[BetaBoy]

Sure.... I think we all want that, but if left with no other choice? I'd rather go through certification to ensure that the decoders/splitters work as they should _IF_ they were to override the embedded WMP/MF decoders, ie; AVC, AAC, AC3.

[G_M_C]

What i'm curious about; Can you deactivate the the MS codecs altogether (through administrator interference or such) ?

If so, than other party (read: possibly better) products can be used of course.

[benwaggoner]

...So I think more that it is the fault of the 3rd party vendors and their wish to make their codec the system´s number one. And this will not change with the new architecture - instead you will block the open source codecs like ffdshow that might finally cause even less problems.
I think it's fair to say it's about 3rd party codecs randomizing things. Codec packs are the worst since their number of .dll to hours of testing ratio is problematic :), but DirectShow just wasn't architected to handle the explosion of different decoders.

And maybe the new approach ignores codecs like the ones above if they are installed on Windows 7, but who guarantees that the windows replacement really works in all the cases? I can remember discussions some years ago when people tried to decode h264 streams with Avisynths DirectShowSource and had problems because the Cyberlink codecs did not return the actual frame number or timecode (?) correctly.
Broadly, it's Windows who guarantees this. If there's cases where the decoders grab streams they can't decode, that's a bug and should be reported. I know those guys are testing with huge wads of different content, have multiple libraries of cleverly crafted corrupted content for fuzz testing, etcetera. I'm sure it'll be the most-tested decoder out there.

Although this is only locked-down with Microsoft's apps, as I understand it. AVISynth can use whatever decoders it likes.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

MS have already had anti-trust problems in Europe due to bundling of WMP alone. A certification process for third-party decoders just to gain platform support would be a bit much and I would prefer not to see Microsoft move in that direction.

It seems Microsoft still didn't learn the lesson :rolleyes:

The job of an OS is providing the interface through which the user can control his computer. It's not to take over control of the computer and lock out the user :rolleyes:

Also the proposed certification process for third party filter would be okay for commercial products, but completely excludes free OpenSource software :mad:

[DigitAl56K]

Also the proposed certification process for third party filter would be okay for commercial products, but completely excludes free OpenSource software :mad:

Not just open source software, but smaller developers in general. If MS really are going to restrict decoders in the most widely distributed media player on the most widely used consumer operating system that means wherever MS does provide their own decoder they will put a massive dent in the value potential for anyone else to trying to offer a solution. It's hardly pro-competition.

Example: What if CoreAVC, ffdshow, DivX H.264 decoders are faster that MS decoder, or have better error resilience, or support acceleration in ways MS decoder does not? Well, it sounds like your only choice as a consumer may be to find an alternative media player - which hasn't been the case certainly for as long as I've been using Windows. What would have happened if Microsoft had forced their own MPEG-4 ASP decoder 5 years ago? We'd have invested a lot of time in building a format in DivX that for some part of our user base we would all of a sudden lose any ability to influence playback performance, quality, backwards compatibility (patches for older encodes), etc.

What we see potentially happening though is MS might end up creating their own splitter solution for MF/Matroska because of the demand and then they wipe the need to not add third party decoders to MF.

Very broadly: If you're going to risk significantly diminished ability to influence the experience of any format further down the road why invest in it?

These are my personal opinions only, btw.

[benwaggoner]

Not just open source software, but smaller developers in general. If MS really are going to restrict decoders in the most widely distributed media player on the most widely used consumer operating system that means wherever MS does provide their own decoder they will put a massive dent in the value potential for anyone else to trying to offer a solution. It's hardly pro-competition.
I suspect that most 3rd party decoders are installed along with or for use with players beyond WMP/MCE, which would still be supported here. And of course decoders for unsupported formats and codecs will still be able to be added.

Example: What if CoreAVC, ffdshow, DivX H.264 decoders are faster that MS decoder, or have better error resilience, or support acceleration in ways MS decoder does not? Well, it sounds like your only choice as a consumer may be to find an alternative media player - which hasn't been the case certainly for as long as I've been using Windows. What would have happened if Microsoft had forced their own MPEG-4 ASP decoder 5 years ago? We'd have invested a lot of time in building a format in DivX that for some part of our user base we would all of a sudden lose any ability to influence playback performance, quality, backwards compatibility (patches for older encodes), etc.
Again, I think the consumers who'd care enough to install those components are probably using something other than WMP in the first place.

your Divx example is a little ironic, of course, as Divx itself started out as a hacked Microsoft .dll :). The whole point was to be able to use Microsoft's pt 2 encoder/decoder with AVI files.

The Divx player itself will continue to work fine under Win 7, so I'm not sure what the impact would be in your case.

Very broadly: If you're going to risk significantly diminished ability to influence the experience of any format further down the road why invest in it?
Well, we're talking about standardized formats and codecs here. There's not much ability for any one part to influence their future much. We're moving from an era of innovation to an era of implementation in terms of decoder stuff.

In the end, it's a tradeoff between robustness versus extensibility. And that's a classic in engineering. I've been yelled at enough by our external partners who have to support deployment to WMP that I'm very sympathetic to anything that can be done to make it more robust and reliable.

[DigitAl56K]

I suspect that most 3rd party decoders are installed along with or for use with players beyond WMP/MCE

I suspect many are installed with or for use with players in addition to WMP.

your Divx example is a little ironic, of course, as Divx itself started out as a hacked Microsoft .dll :). The whole point was to be able to use Microsoft's pt 2 encoder/decoder with AVI files.

It's ironic in what sense? I'm talking about MS locking down WMP after years of openness and limiting the experience users can have with a range of formats, where WMP is arguably the player that the majority of consumers will first be faced with on a Windows 7 system, and you're talking about someone unlocking a codec, which by the way predates the formation of DivX as a company.

The Divx player itself will continue to work fine under Win 7, so I'm not sure what the impact would be in your case.

I'm not speaking from the perspective of our case, but more so philosophically.

We're moving from an era of innovation to an era of implementation

Yes, limiting competition certainly tends to have that effect, doesn't it? ;)

In the end, it's a tradeoff between robustness versus extensibility.

In the end, it would be nice if WMP had a robust approach to extensibility, and if users had the option of making their own tradeoffs. Hence this thread.