Sketch of a future divx/xvid ripping application

[Doom9]

Here is is now, a draft of what I'm looking for in a divx/xvid ripping application. So far I haven't seen a program that would do it all but hopefully this will encourage someone to create this application.
I post this here because I announced that such a draft was forthcoming - this doesn't mean it has to be GKnot though I would be very happy if it were, but the bottom line is that we are at a point where automatization is not wizardry anymore and why not do it when it can be done? Commercial divx programs are being sold just because the current best ways to do divx are rather complicated, I hope that in the future the freeware divx community will have a tool that combines quality with simplicity.

[len0x]

Does the same application suppose to have any customization at all ?
(like full AVS script editor, flexible filter/codec support etc.)

For instance my dream is having a pro tool where you can select several possible combinations of filters and perform comp check on all them and then see the results in the table and more over automatically load all the result files so that you can see frame by frame the difference between them on a single screen...

But anyway, for GK for instance you can see at SF that lots of feature requests are actually for more compicated gui. So the question is - should GK be driven by users or vice versa ?

[Doom9]

about sf: are you refering to http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=714495&group_id=77391&atid=550087 and http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=713779&group_id=77391&atid=550087 ?
I do have my doubts that this really concerns a majority of users (some people love their filters so much they don't realize things look better when not using them ;) Yet, there was also an interesting suggestion in this very forum which reminded me of what the GKnot successor should've been. Fully script based and yet fully automated. Regular users could just select a profile and with a few clicks start encoding, experienced users could go to the script editor and modify the encoding process to their needs (avisynth editing, filters and such). This is of course a very good idea, yet it's also rather complicated. It would more tend towards an "optimal" application rather what I tried to describe.. a more realistic application that doesn't require a complicated framework to satisfy everybody's needs.
Now that filter tool you describe, personally I think that should be a separate tool because it concerns 0.01% of the users. And frame differences are really pretty useless.. I have performed many codec comparisons and I know exactly how little frames really tell you.. some of my code comparisons contain notes that explain that a frame before or after the screenshot will make things look significantly different.
I see just as much feature requests going into the direction I described (ogm, xvid and such) than going towards more customization. And come to think of it, maybe a flexible interface for more filters could be integrated into the settings, or an alternative save avisynth script dialogue.
By the way, people are afraid of asking for more streamlined programs because they've all been dissed for publicly advocating they like 1 click tools ;) (normally these tools are crap unless you create something that uses all the good programs together.. r4r is a shining example there and my draft aims to be another), and the people screaming the loadest are more often than not a minority themselves so you have to carefully gauge what people are asking for.

Imho good tools make life easy for users, but offer advanced control over the process in the background (thus I put most customization in the settings where most people won't notice them which is a good thing since they can be rather complex) and if you start putting those advanced controls in the foreground you're only confusing the less experienced people (consider them to be the majority of users) because they will not just not care about options they don't understand (I sometime can't understand that either but it happens to often I just have to take it as a fact I can't change), but try them out, fall on their nose and then come here wasting our time so the best thing is to prevent that before it happens.

[stax76]

I hope that in the future the freeware divx community will have a tool that combines quality with simplicity


it's not a easy thing to take care of thousand things/variables and twenty different formats, every format has special characteristics the program need to take care of, the encoding code of DVX is a total mess because of cutting (most difficult thing), different container formats, codecs without good rate control or internal credits treatment, a bunch of different audio formats, different audio encoders etc. It would be easier if there was a common format which would be good to have because cheap standalone players are on the way. Maybe would be a good idea if the developers would work together instead against. Users usually don't gain much from competing formats.

[bkam]

I agree that some people (myself included) can get a bit filter happy at times, but I don't feel like this is a reason to exclude the possibility of more complex dialogs with support for more filters. But while I support the creation of a more complex GUI, I also recognize how this can confuse those just entering the scene. It took me many encodes to bother to figure out what all those resize filters meant, and to understand many of the other dialogs and steps required to do such an elaborate process. Therefore I strongly support something like an "Advanced" option, either a button that pops up extra options in the Save & Encode window, or an option in the options tab that allows a person to decide between the simple, profile based dialog (as you suggested, which would be the default) or the more customizable advanced dialog. This would allow new people to choose from simple but relatively well suited (I would think this means at least 4 or 5 profiles--no?) to their job, while allowing ease of customization for those who like their filters. To me, this does not seem so distant from the current gknot, which already supports many options in its save and encode dialog--would it be much harder to simply have "presets" for the options? Of course, I'm not the one coding (although I intend to see how difficult it is--I would love to help). Still, while your draft is certainly different from what we have now, many parts of it seem adaptable to gknot to me, without requiring a new program to be written. Again though, my knowledge is limited and perhaps such things really do need a new program. Just my opinion.

[Doom9]

Still, while your draft is certainly different from what we have now, many parts of it seem adaptable to gknot to me, without requiring a new program to be written
Well, it's closely based on an idea for future GKnot development I sent to Wef before he released it as open source.. so your observation is certainly true. Many facilities are already there, it's just a matter of putting them in a different order to get the job done more efficiently.

About advanced options: Autodub's(http://rackspeed.he.net/~adntat/dark/) advanced audio and codec setup option outline quite nicely how this could work. You have a limited number of generic profiles and experienced users can change things if needed. I'd go even one step further and allow people to save their modified profiles and possibly put all configuration dialogues into a common settings dialogue (that is halfway implemented in r4r except that audio setup is separate).

[Dark-Cracker]

hi,

with a so damn quick development i think Gknot will be the futur of the ripping tools, i think it have all the features requested by users.
but perhaps with more and more parameters it will be only designed for really expert people. it's always hard to find a way to automate the parameters and also permit at the users to custom themselft the parameters.

[stax76]

@Doom9

your draft looks to me like the application should be designed as newbie friendly as possible. Lately I added a lot newbie friendly features to DVX. Did you test a recent version, I think DVX fits your draft best. It's easy to use with a lot automation, tons of tooltips, a help assistent and a large help file, rich featured with more than 25 dialogs without counting plugins and highly customizable and flexible

[int 21h]

Nothing compares to the ease of use FairUse had... Therefore, I humbly propose we begin a joint development effort on the extension of FairUse into 2003. Beginning with the addition of XviD encoding capabilities. The XviD team has done a great job of showing the man what can be done in the open source community on the codec side, now lets pick up the torch, and tell them where to put 'Dr. DivX'.

See http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52939

[len0x]

Originally posted by int 21h
Therefore, I humbly propose we begin a joint development effort on the extension of FairUse into 2003.


hm... lets see - we have just only ppl who think they can contribute to GK in the future :) May be they will be volunteers for FU, but unless somebody just start doing lots of things - it will not move forward...

Originally posted by int 21h

...and tell them where to put 'Dr. DivX'.


I don't understand why ppl have such attitude towards "non-free" products in general. I personally would always choose commercial software against freeware if they do the same things (that's why I'm using divx5 instead of xvid). May be it's only me, who used to programming of commercial software and thinks that that effort should be appreciated...

[int 21h]

Originally posted by len0x
hm... lets see - we have just only ppl who think they can contribute to GK in the future :) May be they will be volunteers for FU, but unless somebody just start doing lots of things - it will not move forward...


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. In my opinion, FU is already leagues ahead of other similar tools in many areas, and needs only some small code additions for XviD and perhaps DivX 5 output.


I don't understand why ppl have such attitude towards "non-free" products in general. I personally would always choose commercial software against freeware if they do the same things (that's why I'm using divx5 instead of xvid). May be it's only me, who used to programming of commercial software and thinks that that effort should be appreciated...

So why aren't you using Dr DivX instead?

[len0x]

Originally posted by int 21h
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. In my opinion, FU is already leagues ahead of other similar tools in many areas, and needs only some small code additions for XviD and perhaps DivX 5 output.


May be... I should have a look then :)
Btw, what's it written in ?

Originally posted by int 21h

So why aren't you using Dr DivX instead?

Well, I can't start using every single tool as soon it's available - I wanna have some life :) But if I see that another tool provides more convenient way for me to encode I might switch (although I kinda doubt that since convenience of GK is in my hands at the moment...)

P.S. from what I know at the moment GK & Dr DivX cannot be compared feature wise...

[int 21h]

Originally posted by len0x
May be... I should have a look then :)
Btw, what's it written in ?


C++

[len0x]

I hate tools where you don't have any options...
I didn't have any DVD in the drive (only ripped version on the hdd), so I couldn't even go past select DVD drive dialog... :(

Sure, that tool might be good for total newbies, but for most of the users of this forum such tool is pretty much useless, imho...
(of cource one can make it more flexible, but it will move it towards GK & DVX, both of which has an advantage of being customizable for a start - it's always easier to simplify things than to complicate...)

[int 21h]

This already has integrated ripping and a fully functional integrated compression interface, while all of the competition relies on third-party programs. We'll see, maybe you're right and no one wants to extend this.

[len0x]

Originally posted by int 21h
This already has integrated ripping and a fully functional integrated compression interface, while all of the competition relies on third-party programs.

True and this can be good and bad at the same time.
On one side you're independent and not concern about bugs in other progs. On another hand, ppl will always want some stuff which is available in other tools (support for new formats like OGM, Matroska, whatever). So author has to keep up with all other projects at the same time (basically doing the same thing). It can be ok if you have 5-6 full-time developers, but can be problematic if it's something you do in your spare time...
But in general I like the concept of self-contained tools, but development is quite costly though...

[int 21h]

Could be solved with a plugin interface.

[J4xxx]

Hey!

Since i would today describe me as simple user and not developer i now like to offer my point of view for discussion:

I now use GK for ripping and did about 200 rips with it because it provides almost everything i need and the quality is what i expect from such software and from the product it offers.
Before GK i just worked in batch mode mpeg2avi and manually editing parameters in batch. Then i found GK and it had what i wanted: Automatically setting the params or fine drop-down bxs!
So now i come to the point: I NOT want complete automation! I just want everything thats similar everytime to be automated but after beeing setted by software still changeable! So as for example the auto-crop option on GK could be automatically started but still be changed before encoding process!
The offer point I see is that GK is just an extended GUI with some functionalities like Bitrate calc and some others. It's not really great always to open DVD2AVI with its menue for just saving scripts and then going back to GK!

Now for programming purposes:
I see the problems coming up with creating a all-in-one solution 'cause of not every codec programmer knows everything about filter interfaces and so on. This would cause to work many free programmers to work on a single project which can cause the known problem of "mods" like we had recently with the GK release of 0.28.1!
Thats why i would prefer a solution as mentioned above: A plugin solution! Then the soft in generally does not much more than a GUI, using just some more interfaces and interaction but is as simple to use as now installing 5 different tools the same time but now 5 plugins! The advantages i think would be on the hand i think: Every programmer can still work on his stuff, not that big problem of organization, it's not that big change like a all-in-one soft, the user can stil decide what he wants to use (filters, plugins etc), no need to use different UIs like GK, DVD2AVI & DVDecryptor!
I hope i could provide an acceptable point of view...

All for now :)
greetz, Jake

[stax76]

@J4xxx

probably you like GK very must and are used it like most people here. In case you come across a limitation someday, I suggest to give DVX a try, the design is exactly what you described, it uses the new .NET technology that offers developpers great benefits, one of the main benefits is it is language independent (plattform independent as well, mono 0.24 was released lately). DVX has a language independent plugin api and a plugin editor that can compile all languages .NET 1.0 supports which are VB .NET, C# and JScript .NET. There are already various DVX plugins available like a updater plugin that can download all programs needed or optional for DVX like other plugins. It's a big advantage people can work with different languages on the same project for instance all DVX plugins written by jernst are written with C# while DVX is written with VB .NET. Imagine a program is written with Delphi like GK which is a good language but not very popular, there is no connection for VB programmers which is the most popular language and therefore there would be only very few plugins. Ideas, sources and components cannot easily be shared

[len0x]

You getting too desperate, man :)
Almost every single your post in GK forums is an DVX ad ;)
I mean there is nothing wrong with promoting DVX - it's just same stuff is being posted again and again...

[J4xxx]

Seems like my post was a bit missunderstud...
I wanted to speak FOR a united community of developers where still the single developer has its own freedom of implementation (Plugin concept) and not for every programmer trying to make his software the best!
Still i mean a bit concurrency must not be bad but imagine how powerful one project with the same targets would be! Look @E-Mule, there are many working for one solution, updates & bugfixes are coming quickly, it's working good!

@Len0x: What do you think should be done to come upon the direction Doom9 mentioned and which could be the way to get started, u as single leader of GK project? ;)

greetz!

[stax76]

You getting too desperate, man
Almost every single your post in GK forums is an DVX ad


OK, I think I see your point, I'll try not to bother any longer, I noticed lately myself the promotion I did so far was not very smart...

[Dark-Cracker]

>united community of developers.

this could be a good idear but unhappyly u must find a programming language in common and once u have the developer team as always there is a lot programmers they could introduce different bugs. but it sure the development could increase the speed if there is a lot of developpers because actually the developpers of different "all-in-one" tool made it for the fun and during there free time.

PS: hum i think i will post an "Autodub vs GK" in the GK forum :) :) :)

(.... don't flame it's a joke)

Bye.

[stax76]

Originally posted by Dark-Cracker
>united community of developers.

this could be a good idear but unhappyly u must find a programming language in common

Bye.

only if you don't like .NET, with .NET you can mix different languages like VB, C#, C++, Java, Delphi, Java Script, Phyton, Cobol, Eifel etc. all this languages are already available for .NET and many more (maybe some still beta)

[int 21h]

Also conveniently you get to download the large .NET runtimes. Which for the older Windows platforms (other than Windows XP and 2k), are buggy at best (i.e. exceptions don't work correctly, alot of the remote functionality is neutered, etc.).

However, programming languages are tools, and whatever tool you choose to do your development in is your own decision, I for one won't listen to any infomercial programmers telling me why I should move all of my development efforts to 'Platform X' because its the future. I had enough of it back in the 90's when those stupid Sun zealots were everywhere.

You figure out how to get your pseudocode into machine language, and I'll figure out how to get my pseudocode into machine language ;)

[Ookami]

@len0x

I am one of those who like FU more than almost any other tool, not only because of the UI (it would be possible to add things like "Expert" options and I am for that, but most things should not be touched by the user anyway, e.g. look at the stupid LAME commandline by various "pros" and the various other "pro" approachers), but because of the overall approach.

Altough, IMO, Gordian Knot is the best DVD->AVI tool, it too has many flaws and things that should be corrected, example, try to load a RGB AVI and then watch the rambling of Avisynth ;) .

It's 2003 and I'm still waiting for a automated solution for newbies that e.g. capture from a TV card/DV etc.

So, like always it depends what you want. And not to mention that a perfect FU and a perfect Gordian Knot would not have so much in common (usage wise, I mean) and are different programs anyway.

A problem with many programs here is it is used by people who like to tweak for hours etc., a tool like Fair Use could get much more popular. Just like comparing the Ifoedit+CCE way with DVD Shrink, two different things altogether.

So, in the end of this long winded posting I would just hope that there are enough programmers and users for both of these programs and all the others, of course...

Cheers,

Mijo.

[len0x]

Originally posted by J4xxx
@Len0x: What do you think should be done to come upon the direction Doom9 mentioned and which could be the way to get started, u as single leader of GK project? ;)


There are some enthusiastic developers who will eventually rewrite the whole GUI. I think migrating system code from existing GK to the new version is the best way to go (although not the shortest path).
New GUI hopefully will have automation, mentioned by Doom as well as flexibility and advanced options for pros...
(If we gonna design new GUI we will definitely ask for some feedback in this forum)

In general I feel that if GK had several developers doing completely different parts (say GUI, plugins, encoding, external tools) GK can be improved in a very short period of time...

So, we'll see :)

[stax76]

You figure out how to get your pseudocode into machine language, and I'll figure out how to get my pseudocode into machine language


I understand, I guess that's the best thing we can do

[len0x]

I can't see actual attach for the first message of this thread...

[epere4]

Originally posted by len0x
I can't see actual attach for the first message of this thread...
It is explained here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52523)

[stax76]

I can't see actual attach for the first message of this thread...


I can post the draft if you want

[binky the stunt cat]

yes please....
even better, someone edit it into doom9's origonal post.....

[stax76]

Proposal for a future DivX / XviD ripping application

1) Consider that a dvd2avi project along with encoded audio and subtitles (vobsub) and chapter points (ogm) is already present.

2) Project settings
In case of a PAL movie display a preview allowing the user to select whether a movie needs to be deinterlaced or not.
If yes, FieldDeinterlace will be added to the AviSynth script upon creation.
The user is given the possibility to select the codec including required code settings (see settings below)
number of CDs and CD size. Existing audio and subtitle files will already be shown as well as the
calculated bitrate. If the audio files are AC3 or MP3 an output format selection is also available: AVI or OGM
All those settings are already filled in according to the user preferences. If there's an AC3 and MP3/OGM file having the
same name, the latter is to be taken.

3) Resolution / Comp check
The input d2v is auto resized to the largest size the user has allowed, and auto crop is performed (as per the GKnot guide)
An Avisynth script is created, the resizing algorithm is taken according to automatization (like in GKnot know)
or a user selection.
If the d2v has 29.97fps perform IVTC via decomb
Now an automatic comp check is performed. If the obtained results fall within a defined treshold (to be defined,
changeable in the settings) the resolution taken is used for encoding the movie. If not, a more suitable
resolution is suggested and the user has to okay the resolution change.

4) Encoding
Movie is encoded using the selected codec and codec parameters. Codecs supported are DivX3, DivX5.0x and XviD
If possible codec configuration should be integrated in the program settings (like dvd2ogm) as it can be used to
spare the user from many options he/she doesn't understand. An idea how this could be achieved is lined out in
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50093
Bitrate is calculated according to the number of input audio files and the selected output format (substract space needed
for vobsub subs). For OGM it might be necessary to collect some data concerning the overhead. All the OGM users
in the New A/V Format forums might be of some help there.

5) Muxing
According to the user settings the movie is muxed as an OGM or AVI. In case of OGM the chapter info file is used
to create the appropriate chapters automatically. VDubMod could possibly be automated by using vcd files.
DVD2OGM (http://dvdtoogm.divx-digest.com/) could give some ideas here.
MP3, AC3 audio -> both AVI and OGM are possible
Ogg audio -> OGM only
After muxing the file is split according to the desired splitsize. If there are vobsub subs they are to be split at the
same position as the movie.
Put final files into CD specific folders (all files for CD 1 go to projectfolder\cd1, etc.)

Settings

Resolution: Maximum, Minimum and desired standard horizontal resolution (suggestion: 640x - 512x as max /min)
Comp Check: percentage -> resolution association on several levels, possible separated by codec
alternatively: bits/pixel*frame -> resolution for people like me who have a pretty clear idea of what res they want for
a give movie.
In case the resolution is changed after a comp check there should be a flag that spares the user from signing of a
resolution change if he desires that.
Automatic comp check can also be turned off.
Resizing: bits/pixel*frame => resizing algo association, and an option to always use a certain algo
Encoding: Codec selection and configuration of the most important parameters
DivX3: Antishit (requires RGB conversion in the avs !!)
DivX5: #of passes, pro settings, psy settings
XviD: Motion search precision, quanttype, lumimasking, chromamasking, qpel, gmc, #b frames, b frame quantizer ratio
# of CDs and CD size
Output format: AVI or OGM.
Ogg Vorbis audio input -> OGM automatically chosen, AVI not possible


Manual mode: User can select the resolution himself and optionally launch a comp check. User can then adapt the resolution or start
encoding. The setup is otherwise the same as described above.

[J4xxx]

Ahh, now it's getting clear!
I think this sketch is not very far from existing GordianKnot!
I thought that much more options should be included...

greetz!

[stax76]

quotes of Doom9's draft:


In case of a PAL movie display a preview allowing the user to select whether a movie needs to be deinterlaced or not. If yes, FieldDeinterlace will be added to the AviSynth script upon creation.



If the d2v has 29.97fps perform IVTC via decomb


maybe dumb question but can NTSC always be ivtc'ed,
where I live fortunately I rarely have to deal with
NTSC and field operations and therefore don't have
much experience

[len0x]

Originally posted by Dolemite
maybe dumb question but can NTSC always be ivtc'ed,


Yes, if fps is 29.97

[stax76]

Yes, if fps is 29.97


but then I don't understand the guide:

TO IVTC OR TO DEINTERLACE. As hakko504 and jggimi both said, just because DVD2AVI shows it to be Interlaced or as 100% NTSC doesn't mean it's pure interlaced material. In fact, in most cases it can be IVTC'd. So, how can you tell which to use? Look at the frames. How can you do that? Make your .d2v with No Field Operation (29.97fps), open it in GKnot, and scroll to a place with continual movement over 10 frames or more. Then start advancing a frame at a time. If, in every 5 frames, you see 2 interlaced frames and 3 non-interlaced (progressive) frames, then it has been telecined and can be IVTC'd (Inverse Telecined). If you see that every frame is interlaced, then it was created at 29.97fps (actually 30fps). These can't be IVTC'd. If you try, you'll be dropping non-duplicate material, and it will play very jerky (most obvious during a scrolling or panning scene). They can only be deinterlaced. Another way to check the frames is to make your .avs at 29.97fps (before IVTC) and open it in VDub or Nandub and make the same examination of the frames. Or use hakko504's script above and open it in VDub. Using his script, you're hoping to see very few interlaced frames (which a deinterlacer can take care of), and one duplicate in every 5 frames. There are other combinations of video and progressive frames which may show up and these are covered briefly in the “Bad Telecines” paragraph further down.

[len0x]

Originally posted by Dolemite
but then I don't understand the guide:


Well, usually you want to go down to 23fps anyway and that cannot be done with just deinterlace. So yes, you'll be dropping non-duplicated material... I just haven't seen any dvd-rips with original 29.97 fps

[bkam]

Well, if they don't follow a pattern, then I think it means they were produced from non film material. If they're film, then it's 29.970 and it can be IVTCed to 23.976 without appearing jerky. However, some DVDs can be fully interlaced, requiring just fielddeinterlace and leaving it at 29.970fps for NTSC (unless I have been doing those ones wrong). I work with no PAL material but there are some times where IVTC does not work. This is usually when the movie is primarily progressive @ 29.970, so IVTC makes it jerky, but it still has some parts with combing. All I know how to do is add FieldDeinterlace() there and it works. Notably, opera DVDs are this way. Also, some NTSC DVDs still have combing after you force film or IVTC (95% FILM still leaves non-progressive frames). If you IVTC too I think. And since FieldDeinterlace() is smart (albeit slooww) sometimes the only thing you can do is add this in. How I understand it is that FieldDeinterlace() will make sure that no interlaced frames remain, although it's slow as hell (for me, <20fps comparied to >40fps I think). It's smart, so if you have totally pure film I think it won't affect it, but one way to test is to get a DVD that when you run it through DVD2AVI it doesn't say FILM it says 96% FILM or any % as long as it's not 100%, then try compressibility tests with and without FieldDeinterlace(). The ones where you add the FieldDeinterlace are usually at least 3% better compressibility, often more. I believe this is from the fact that interlacing artifacts are very hard to compress.

By the way, I am no expert, I am a result of having read tons of posts here and that rereading hakko's guide like 1000 times. But my stuff normally comes out without combing and without jerkiness so I'm doing it right enough for myself. Someone please correct me if everything I said is wrong! Hope this helps though.

[wotef]

Originally posted by Ookami
It's 2003 and I'm still waiting for a automated solution for newbies that e.g. capture from a TV card/DV etc.


Yes! I think the community is very well served with all the DVD ripping tools; I'd really like to have a toolset centred around AVI capture/filtering/encoding, you know, for all those tedious capping-related things we do in virtualdub and avisynth...for which I guess a lot of code could be re-used from existing tools...unfortunately I don't possess any programming skillz :(

hmm, maybe I could start a thread for "sketch of a future AVI capture processing application"

[N_F]

NTSC movies can not always be IVTC:ed. Just like the guide says they may be interlaced (or some other weird combination) in which case you'll have to leave it at 29,97 and applay a deinterlacer to make it look good.

I would assume many NTSC DVDs with concerts and documentaries should be handled this way.


Though something I've never understood is how these 29,97 materials are handled for PAL. hakko504? manono?

[ChristianHJW]

Originally posted by Dolemite
Output format: AVI or OGM.
Ogg Vorbis audio input -> OGM automatically chosen, AVI not possible

objections : one alternative output format is missing :D !!

N.B. This new container format ( no, i wont mention the name ) is ideal for capturing, especially in lossless mode for audio and video ( soon ) ...

[UMP]

Originally posted by len0x
I hate tools where you don't have any options...
I didn't have any DVD in the drive (only ripped version on the hdd), so I couldn't even go past select DVD drive dialog... :(

It's sure better to use GK if you already had VOBs on your HD, but the next time you'll rip a DVD might be a good opportunity to give FU a try ;)

Sure, that tool might be good for total newbies, but for most of the users of this forum such tool is pretty much useless, imho...

I don't agree with you on this. I think FU is the perfect tool for users that primarily want the job to be done easily and with a good quality. I stopped to rip DVDs (even with GK) because I was too lazy to go through the different steps (even with robot4rip) because you always have to set up GK. Since FU can do DivX 5 encoding and can transcode/mux audio, ripping is a real pleasure again :D

it's always easier to simplify things than to complicate...)

For having dive deep into the FU code, I assure you that simplifying things is definitely not easy in some cases... I have to say that the FU code is really impressive.

[len0x]

Originally posted by UMP
I don't agree with you on this. I think FU is the perfect tool for users that primarily want the job to be done easily and with a good quality. I stopped to rip DVDs (even with GK) because I was too lazy to go through the different steps (even with robot4rip) because you always have to set up GK. Since FU can do DivX 5 encoding and can transcode/mux audio, ripping is a real pleasure again :D


Well, dunno about others but if you omit comp test from the time you need to set up GK to a perfect rip - it's 30 sec or less for me...
How lazy must you be! :)

Anyway the point was: any regular user at this board sooner or later discovers some advanced techiques he wanna try (either it's different filters or codec settings etc.) And if the same tool he was using allows him to do so, that I think is great. (I don't think we have lots of ppl here who are not interested in the process itself - this is very advanced forum)

P.S. what do you use for muxing audio in FU. It looks like you only have nandub in your distribution, which is less than ideal...