free AVC/H.264 player - Splash [Archive]

shinedot

3rd April 2009, 08:37

Few days ago i downloaded new player from mirillis - splash.
BETA is available at: http://mirillis.com/splash.html

tested it and must say it is top free player for h.264 and avchd streams. faster and better than mpc/vlc/ffdshow.
DXVA does not work on my xp (only vista for now, xp will be supported in later releases) but works fine on other vista pc.

performance is just a little bit worse than commercial cyberlink codec.

functionality is still very basic but i hope they will keep up the good work!

Dark Shikari

3rd April 2009, 08:39

faster and better than ffdshowperformance is just a little bit worse than commercial cyberlink codec
I sense a contradiction here.

shinedot

3rd April 2009, 10:53

I sense a contradiction here.

why? does ffdshow and cyberlink codec have somethin in common?

edit: i tested it with avchd streams from camcorders only

Adub

3rd April 2009, 20:34

No, they don't have something in common. That's the thing. FFdshow is usually (if not always) faster than Cyberlink. At least in my experience it is.

LoRd_MuldeR

3rd April 2009, 21:00

Now that ffdshow uses the multi-threaded ffmpeg decoders (ffmpeg-MT) for H.264, it is pretty fast on multi-core systems!
I know about exactly two H.264 decoders that are actually faster than ffdshow - in pure software mode. These are CoreAVC and DivX H.264 Decoder.
So if something beats ffdshow/ffmpeg speed-wise, it would play in the CoreAVC league...

shinedot

3rd April 2009, 21:16

gonna get new ffdshow version and tets it all again then

shinedot

3rd April 2009, 21:41

did some testing of avchd streams form camcorders:
canon hf100, panasonic sd9, sony s11/12.

well. maybe ffdshow is better than cyberlink in some h.264 streams.
i dont know but i tested it for avchd.
i used ffdshow and mirillis splash.

cpu usage:
ffdshow: about 50%
splash: about 85%

but mirillis splash gives smooth nice playback and ffdshow plays 27sec stream in 48seconds slowmotion :/

so. for some streams splash and cyberlink codec can be much faster than ffdshow.

LoRd_MuldeR

3rd April 2009, 21:59

gonna get new ffdshow version and tets it all again then

cpu usage:
ffdshow: about 50%
splash: about 85%

Obviously that is old ffdshow -or- you aren't using the ffmpge-MT decoder ;)

Make sure you get the latest ffdshow build from here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=173941&package_id=199416&release_id=439938

Also make sure that "ffmpeg-mt" (not "libavcodec") is selected as decoder for "H.264/AVC" on the "Codecs" page in ffdshow video decoder configuration!
Finally make sure that "Number of decoding threads" on the "Decoder options" page is set at least to the number of cores you have...

[EDIT]

A proper comparison of H.264 decoders can be found here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1262683&postcount=1

Cyberlink decoder is not included, but CoreAVC and DivX H.264 Decoder are (and these are known to be the fastest we have available right now).
Also you can see that ffdshow-MT's decoding performance scales very nice with the number of cores :)

shinedot

3rd April 2009, 22:23

thank you! a little complicated this is but now avchd streams work almost perfect!

no slowmotion. looks smooth, but some streams still play a little longer than should (but not twice longer!)

now cpu usage is very simillar to Splash.
still ffdshow needs a little more power than splash.

CruNcher

3rd April 2009, 23:27

I remember testing their Decoder back then when they first released it must have been 1 year or so ago but @ that time it was less advanced (imho it was a catastrophe) then the Research of CoreCodec or ffdshow, somehow i doubt they improved it that heavily till now, but who knows ;)
Also i find it still strange that they have 0 impress you have no idea who they are where they coming from what they do :P, ok with some vast knowledge you can find out that the company must be located somewhere in Poland :)

Atak_Snajpera

3rd April 2009, 23:46

ok with some vast knowledge you can find out that the company must be located somewhere in Poland
not somewhere but here
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Zielona+Gora+poland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.136115,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=52.415823,15.512695&spn=6.769525,19.775391&z=6&iwloc=addr

CruNcher

3rd April 2009, 23:52

How can you be sure that the Registrant sits also where the company resides ;) ? (in this case though i assume it's correct also seeing that his workplace is located there and his university)
The company could also be somehwere in the near of Krakow ;)

You can assume that Pawel Hladkiewicz is something like the CEO of it founded this after his work @ ADB R&D http://www.adbglobal.com/ though it looks currently like it's no real company just a individual managing this.

LoRd_MuldeR

3rd April 2009, 23:54

Who cares where the company is located? The question is whether their product is worth the hype or not ;)

7o9

6th April 2009, 10:14

has it been established yet how this new player is "better" than mpc/vlc ?

i like unsubstantiated claims as much as the next guy, but some arguments could be nice. "functionality is still very basic" surely won't make it "better" and the non-free part neither.

turbojet

7th April 2009, 20:51

Other than it offers smoother playback then ffdshow (also ffmpeg-mt) on a borderline pc and it's just as smooth as coreavc/divx/cyberlink/arcsoft on the same borderline computer I can't see any advantages.

I really believe ffdshow has some buffer issues or something because ffmpeg-mt is considerably faster at decoding through a frameserver then cyberlink but it's a different story when it comes to playback.

For splash to become a major player I think it really needs to add VC-1 and MPEG2 support along with HDMV/BD-J menu support. I realize it's a beta product now and I see a disabled open disc function which I wonder what it will do, but I can't get the player to play for more than a few minutes on vista 64, it just closes all of a sudden.

shinedot

10th April 2009, 16:49

For me other advantages of Splash are:

1)easy to use, no complicated/secret/hidden settings.
i just installed it and played all h.264 and avchd

2) nice gui. thats something fresh. not so important but its always nice to have good look and feel.

... and like turbojet said - they have lot of work to do to make it better (mpeg2 vc1 etc...).

mariner

10th April 2009, 17:01

...
For splash to become a major player I think it really needs to add VC-1 and MPEG2 support along with HDMV/BD-J menu support
...

...and 1920x1080/60P...

Best regards.

shinedot

14th April 2009, 16:26

...and 1920x1080/60P...

Best regards.

hmm? i got some sanyo xacti 1080 60p streams and it all works fine

nijiko

25th April 2009, 04:22

Today is 25th April.
I'm just w8ing 4 BETA 2 released.

shinedot

29th April 2009, 10:56

no beta 2 yet. i noticed changed release date on website. 4th or 5th may :/

Przemek_Sperling

19th September 2009, 07:03

Well, I have to say that I have installed the player a week ago (the final version of the program) and I confirm that it is great. It is the first one which utilizes ATI AVIVO (remember you have to install AVIVO codecs, download them e.g. from here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/avivo/Pages/avivoxp-download.aspx) out of the box and it does it very well. I made a test with Monsters, Inc. (I ripped it from a BR disc and encoded it by myself with RipBot264), which is one of the most demanding movies I have in my video library. When I used the KMPlayer (no hardware support) my CPU (Intel E5200 Dual Core @ 3.87 Ghz) was used in 17-24%, when I used Splash Player with AVIVO support the CPU was utilized in 1-2%. The playback is very smooth. I am really impressed because the software is very intuitive, simple yet functional. I will test it with DVB-T streams soon (DVB-T in Poland utilizes H.264), and inform you how it works with the TV.

CruNcher

20th September 2009, 00:31

Indeed they implemented a lot of stuff since the last time i looked @ it :) especially claiming realtime Motion Compensated 1080i->p in Software seems interesting also their own Framerate Changer (based on CPU+GPU) Upscaler http://mirillis.com/picture2.html wonder how they compare to MSU(Videsofts) and Nvidias Research, testing against Nvidias stuff seems rather trivial by activating/deactivating it in the settings and compare GPU vs their Software Algorithm visually :)

Paulcat

2nd October 2009, 16:10

I have tried the free version, and it works playing mp4 files without skipping (unlike MPC) on the office pc, HOWEVER, if you reduce the volume in the splash player and then exit, the master volume of the pc is reduced to that level, even if you set the volume of the pc or in other players to max. You have to restart splash and raise the volume again, which is a pain in the a$$.

mariush

2nd October 2009, 18:29

shinedot

3rd October 2009, 20:46

at start it shows that hardware acceleration is available with a screenshot with the checkbox... i instantly tried to click on it but it's just a picture... there should be a button saying enable instead of telling me to go to settings, video, and enable...

playlist doesnt work

tv tuner is not detected at all (winfast 2000 xp expert)

subtitles included in mkv files don't work

If there's already something playing and using Overlay (tv tuner for example) then ...

going to full screen and back to window and then back to fullscreen makes the player leave junk outside the movie area if it's for example 4:3

See http://savedonthe.net/image/350/Clipboard01.jpg
There's also some tearing and overall poor quality, see http://savedonthe.net/image/351/Clipboard04.jpg

It uses a constant 6-7% to decode h264+ac3, compared to less than 1% for mpc-hc + ac3filter using dxva.

some of issues are solved in new release. 4:3 junk (i had this on tv)and volume... with 1.0 or 1.0.1 i noticed similar problems as you.

i think splash is not working well on your pc spec if you have any tearing and low quality video. i use mpc-hc and splash on 4 PCs with dxva and always Splash takes 2-3x less cpu than mpchc.

anyway, im waiting for 24p to 60p converting... this could be interesting.

edit: btw. on screenshots - what the hell is the quality of this videos? youtube? :)

Dark Eiri

4th October 2009, 01:04

The GUI of this thing is so damn beautiful! If MPC-HC looked even remotely like this, it would be the ultimate player. I would totally switch to Splash if the subtitles on MKV worked. Maybe next version will win me over.

Remicade

2nd January 2010, 13:32

With new version subtitle in mkv works.

Splash Version History
31/12/2009 Splash Lite 1.1
* New H.264 software decoding core. New v2.0 decoding core includes optimizations for Intel SSSE3 extensions and is up to 30% faster than v1.0.
* Improved H.264/AVC video start up time (in software decoding mode)
* Fixed playback of unindexed MKV videos
* GPU video decoding improvements on nVidia GPUs (decoding of 1920x1080 H.264 video streams with more than 5 reference frames)
* GPU video decoding improvements on Intel and ATI GPUs
* LPCM audio in VOBs support
* Support for files with more then 6 audio tracks
* EcoMode tab added to Splash settings (limited functionality in Splash Lite)
* Field coded VC-1 video decoding support
* Desktop shortcut drag'n'drop support
* TV Tuner initialization improvements
* Screensaver management improvements

Alante

13th January 2010, 15:01

When it comes to HD and HA (Hardware Acceleration) this player can really show some potential. Used to try MPC (DXVA) which is also good, about 10% - 14% CPU usage but I get some artifacts at begging sometimes. Tried CoreAVC as well, but that's made for nVidia cards and still has problems when it comes to Windows 7, whit some workarounds might work but I own a ATi card and let's not forget - now it's commercial... Mirillis Splash player PRO will also be commercial if you need those extra Pro Functions (http://mirillis.com/splash.html) but Splash Lite will be free and works "right out-of-box" even in Windows 7 - you just have to active Hardware Acceleration, that's all. :)

For every day videos I use KMPlayer, but for HD's this player covers all of my needs - quality, functionality, HA and no hassle when it comes to setting it, don't even need the extra functions. Remembered the MPC (DXVA) and CoreAVC first betas, now those where demanding (time, some stress...), at least MPC (DXVA) done it right in the end, whit small flaws which are Video Driver related but CoreAVC is same hassle when it comes to Windows 7, still nVidia based and also commercial now - yet we have better free alternatives. :)

Here are some screenshots, if you're wondering what I'm babbling about when I talk about Splash Player HD - HA (Hardware Acceleration) potential (as in 0% - 3% CPU USE):

http://forum.doom9.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10663&d=1263389410

http://forum.doom9.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10665&d=1263389429

http://forum.doom9.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10666&d=1263390467

mikegun

13th January 2010, 20:15

looks promising, too bad spdif output is a pro feature

Alante

15th January 2010, 22:05

Hmm, neuron2 removed my demonstration screenshots ...yet they respected the size (200 kb) even the h/w, maybe the content was not pleasing (showing Splash running HD videos at 1% - 3% CPU usage)....

PS.One thing is to talk about something, only theorize and no facts to prove it, but now I showed some facts (demonstrations) and those got removed... :confused: And this is about the free part...

Astrophizz

16th January 2010, 01:13

You should probably PM him to ask why he removed it. AFAIK that's how to dispute something with a mod.

avivahl

16th January 2010, 04:27

Alante

16th January 2010, 14:03

No it didn't, it was a HD-DVD Demo 1080p (http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/530/mirrors.php) which is a marketing video for "HD-DVD" - showing some features and others HD Demonstrations like 20th Century Fox HD. As far as I know, I can even put actual screenshots from a Commercial HD and won't brake any copyright-infringements, unless I put video scenes from the video or full video. In current times, we have video trailers all over the web and you think that a screenshot from a marketing video, could be considered a copyright-infringed content...

Keiyakusha

20th January 2010, 17:21

Alante

20th January 2010, 18:38

Just tried this player. looks nice but:
- Does not supports FLAC
- Does not supports styled subtitles. There is no way to make it read subs from "subtitles" folder
- limited mkv support
- no way to reassign keys
- software decoding slower than with DS-based players using decent decoders
+ gui looks nice. maybe a bit too dark for me.

It's intended for HD content and the biggest bonus you get with this player: "Hardware Acceleration" for HD with a simple click. You could use it as an alternative for HD (and this is where it really shines compared to any other alternative available - both free and commercial), but definitely not as a replacement. It's still new, they might improve the support for other video types but they never said nothing regarding Audio types.

Based on your review and the fact that I see you have no interest for HD content, I'd say you'd be better of with KMPlayer or SMPlayer (MPlayer for Windows (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=138725)). This two seem to cover all your needs. ;)

Keiyakusha

20th January 2010, 19:22

It's intended for HD content and the biggest bonus you get with this player: "Hardware Acceleration" for HD with a simple click. You could use it as an alternative for HD (and this is where it really shines compared to any other alternative available - both free and commercial), but definitely not as a replacement. It's still new, they might improve the support for other video types but they never said nothing regarding Audio types.
Nothing of what I said will be different with different resolution. All of these things is needed both for SD and HD
What I'm not interested in is hardware acceleration. There is no benefits over software decoding, its just a "cool shiny feature".

Based on your review and the fact that I see you have no interest for HD content, I'd say you'd be better of with KMPlayer or SMPlayer (MPlayer for Windows (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=138725)). This two seem to cover all your needs. ;)
It's not like I'm looking for a player. I just always like to try something new.

Alante

20th January 2010, 20:06

Nothing of what I said will be different with different resolution. All of these things is needed both for SD and HD
What I'm not interested in is hardware acceleration. There is no benefits over software decoding, its just a "cool shiny feature".

:)

Software decoding can use 60% of your CPU resources, this needs less then 3% cause it puts the weight on the video-card, which means you could watch a HD video wile encoding (for example). Then again, you probably don't do that, so you may be right when saying that hardware accelerations it's just shiny feature, but this for the average user - which can concentrate the usage resource for a specific player, maybe it doesn't do something else at that time.

RNiK

21st January 2010, 10:37

Any chance to have a "portable version" of this player?

edigee

21st January 2010, 12:06

I've also noticed is the only player that can accelerate H264 720p videos with prof.@L5.1 and 12 ref. using an ATI videocard(HD 3650) on Vista x86(In XP -no). In MPC-HC that video doesn't work in DXVA mode. Same thing in KMPlayer using Cyberlink PDVD8 H264 decoder-it doesn't work.
There are certain things to improve ,but the overall product looks promising. Can't wait for the PRO version.

gngn

21st January 2010, 17:06

@edigee: the clip you are talking about isnt level 5.1 , but actually level 4.1. the (height*width*Ref) fits in the 4.1 level limits.

shinedot

21st January 2010, 23:26

- software decoding slower than with DS-based players using decent decoders
...

Hmmm, depends about what decoders are you talking about.
H.264 decoder in Splash is great, slower than Divx decoder but a lot faster than FFdshow (basing on Intel core2duo and quad cpus + AVCHD clips). This is very good decoder i would say, stable and reliable. It also has a big potential (i hope;) as its developed for few months only - other decoders are developed for many years now.

There is no benefits over software decoding, its just a "cool shiny feature".

Sorry but it is a bullshit what you say :)
No benefits only when:
- you dont pay bills and sh...t on ecology stuff :) (DXVA takes much less power than cpu decoding)
- you dont watch videos on notebook and more importantly on netbooks (even few times longer and smooth playback on batteries than on cpu decoding)
- you dont care about video quality or dont watch 1080i (with dxva you got smooth 1080i video playback and with software decoding there is only splash that offers 1080i to 1080p conversion that really works).

DXVA is nice :)

RNiK: on splash forum I found info that portable version is planned.

edigee

22nd January 2010, 00:34

@Gngn

....unless Mediainfo is lying.....
I mean ,it dosen't show accurately (by standards) the real characteristics of the file.

Keiyakusha

22nd January 2010, 02:40

Hmmm, depends about what decoders are you talking about.
H.264 decoder in Splash is great, slower than Divx decoder but a lot faster than FFdshow (basing on Intel core2duo and quad cpus + AVCHD clips). This is very good decoder i would say, stable and reliable. It also has a big potential (i hope as its developed for few months only - other decoders are developed for many years now.
When I say decent decoders, I actually mean "known to be fast". Yes, DivX is one of them. Unless their "ultra fast" (as they say) decoder will be at least as fast as DivX, its nothing more than disappointment.

Probably "cool shiny feature" was too much for a DXVA-fanboy's ears. I'm sorry for that.
As for other things, I won't answer that since I believe none of us will be able to convince another in something.

iko417

22nd January 2010, 03:48

i can't open anything with this program

Mangix

22nd January 2010, 04:59

only mp4s with h264 and some mkvs with mpeg2 open on my end.

Alante

22nd January 2010, 11:10

When I say decent decoders, I actually mean "known to be fast". Yes, DivX is one of them. Unless their "ultra fast" (as they say) decoder will be at least as fast as DivX, its nothing more than disappointment.

Probably "cool shiny feature" was too much for a DXVA-fanboy's ears. I'm sorry for that.
As for other things, I won't answer that since I believe none of us will be able to convince another in something.

There is no software decoder that can compete with DXVA, if you own a capable VGA (and this days you coul find one, even in a entry level PC). As for for "DXVA-fanboys/cool and shiny feature/no improvement over software decoding" this must the most stupidest statement regarding a good option that I've seen so far, when it comes to video decoding.

Cool and shiny features are usually interface based, the ones that don't help in term of performance, might even add an extra weight, yet DXVA can offer a huge performance improvement, putting the decoding weight on the video card... and you say...

What I'm not interested in is hardware acceleration. There is no benefits over software decoding, its just a "cool shiny feature".

Since you had no interested in it, obviously you have no idea regarding what "Hardware Acceleration" could do in practice. Maybe on a forum dedicated to PC enthusiasts, you'll say (if you hadn't so far) that Overclocking is just a "shiny feature" and only "OC fan-boys" would say otherwise... But that's just an average user opinion and it should be treated like it, or maybe you're trolling... :rolleyes:

edigee

22nd January 2010, 11:44

In terms of image quality ,yes, the ffdshow H264 decoder is superior to MPC filter in DXVA mode. And superior to Cyberlink H264 decoder too. But I'm using and looking forward to any improvements of that "cool shiny feature" ,because my system(s) are too weak to handle 1080p h264 videos in software mode.I'm not builing monster computers to conquer Mars- just regulary HTPC-s. So you may call me a "DXVA fan boy" ,and btw , it dosen't sound bad at all ,if someone was trying to be sarcastic( or to lazy or fat to climb the wall between different opinions)

patch1

22nd January 2010, 12:39

What I'm not interested in is hardware acceleration. There is no benefits over software decoding, its just a "cool shiny feature".

Makes sense if you have already spent your money on a CPU that can do it in software and don't want your CPU to be doing any thing else or you are not happy the the image processing restrictions imposed by DVXA.

Suspect this is a minority view given the ongoing development in hardware (GPU and coprocessors in general) and software (mpc-hc (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=123537) and videolan (http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=70424)).

Back on topic.
Splash has a simple clean interface which works with basic configuration choices. It is much more usable by a much larger segment of the population.
Would like to see the same capability added to mpc-hc. Perhaps good defaults and a 2 level configuration interface is needed.

Astrophizz

22nd January 2010, 18:00

Alante, there is no "best" as you are implying. DXVA does have shortcomings.

namaiki

22nd January 2010, 18:54

Would like to see the same capability added to mpc-hc. Perhaps good defaults and a 2 level configuration interface is needed.

I don't see what most users (this segment of population that would find Splash player's friendliness on level) would need to change in a default MPC-HC setup.

There is no software decoder that can compete with DXVA.
On what level?