Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd May 2009, 08:22   #241  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Are you absolutely sure lexor ? i mean you have to be ultra sure about this claim (better triple check) as if this would be true and Microsoft has now began to even wider the spectrum of this and that even after being criticized for their "We have to protect our own Apps from evilness and dumb users" move it would be outrageous, though this is still RC not final and maybe Microsoft want's to make people and 3rd partys shaking in their shoes a little (to show them who the boss is) and then on RTM day they gonna say "hey was just a joke"
Though seeing that Win 7 RC is out for a while now and no one else on the .Net saying Microsoft tightened it even more in terms of 3rd party media playback behavior makes me not wanna believe in this story somehow, common sense forbids it i would rather believe they changed something about the Graph building that had a bad effect and now it broke entirely with some filters
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :)

It is about Time

Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late !

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2009, 11:23   #242  |  Link
Shakey_Jake33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 233
I can't say I've had a single problem getting ffdshow (or any other 3rd party codec) to play nice with MPC-HC in Windows 7 RC tbh.
Shakey_Jake33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2009, 12:30   #243  |  Link
saint-francis
too much lurking
 
saint-francis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 668
Same here. I use FFDShow with MPC HC every day on Windows 7 RC. I haven't tried any other players but I can say for certain that when ever I render any file in graphedit it always uses MS filters.
saint-francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2009, 21:32   #244  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexor View Post
That is demonstrably false:

First, benwaggoner said that MPC had to be fixed.
If it has its own graph builder, it shouldn't need to be fixed.

I'm getting unclear info here on what is or is not working. If there's an app developer who thinks they should be getting access to 3rd party filters but can't make it work, that's a bug and they should file that on connect or PM me.

Any app developer should be able to use any DirectShow or MFC that they want to in their media pipeline.

Some may require an update to do so, of course.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2009, 06:47   #245  |  Link
Snowknight26
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,394
Why the horrible image quality for Xvid files? It's almost as if the Microsoft decoders are skipping deblocking.

MPC-HC's internal decoder:


WMP12 using Microsoft decoder:
Snowknight26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2009, 07:31   #246  |  Link
Sagekilla
x264aholic
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
It looks more like they're going overkill on deblocking and killing fine detail. There's barely any from the WMP decoded one.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame.
Sagekilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2009, 21:56   #247  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowknight26 View Post
Why the horrible image quality for Xvid files? It's almost as if the Microsoft decoders are skipping deblocking.
Xvid uses MPEG-4 ASP. And MPEG-4 ASP does not have any kind of deblocking!

Yes, many MPEG-4 ASP decoders have a deblocking filter. But that is optional post-processing. It's not an integral part of the decoder

Micro$oft's decoder apparently doesn't offer that option. This is yet another reason why allowing the user choose his/her preferred decoder is so important!

As if there weren't enough already
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2009, 22:53   #248  |  Link
clsid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,033
MPC-HC's internal MPEG-4 ASP decoder uses no deblocking at all. As Sagekilla said, the MS decoder uses too much post-processing, making things look worse.
clsid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2009, 23:49   #249  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsid View Post
MPC-HC's internal MPEG-4 ASP decoder uses no deblocking at all. As Sagekilla said, the MS decoder uses too much post-processing, making things look worse.
No matter whether too much post-processing or missing post-processing is the problem, fact is that MPEG-4 ASP doesn't have any pre-defined deblocking. That's why different MPEG-4 ASP decoders offer different type of post-processing (or no post-processing at all). And we must allow the user to decide what he/she prefers! If the M$ decoder uses a type of post-processing that I don't like, but I cannot easily adjust the decoder's post-processing or choose a different decoder, then that makes the entire player useless for me. Who would use a player that screws up the video?
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 11:16   #250  |  Link
Manao
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
And we must allow the user to decide what he/she prefers!
Not at the cost of complexity. Most of windows users don't even know what deblocking is, so from microsoft's point of view, there is no need to add complexity.

Quote:
If the M$ decoder uses a type of post-processing that I don't like, but I cannot easily adjust the decoder's post-processing or choose a different decoder, then that makes the entire player useless for me.
Indeed, but you have alternatives. Microsoft has alienated you - but you (and me, and most of Doom9 users) are not mainstream users. I do think the lack of configurability was done on purpose, and is the good choice, from MS's point of view.

Quote:
Who would use a player that screws up the video?
Somebody that doesn't know the video is screwed up. Roughly 95% of people. Hell, my parents watch TV with an incorrect aspect ratio, as most people with flat screens do. They have the option not to do so, and they don't use it because it's too complicated.
__________________
Manao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 13:00   #251  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,073
We don't need more complexity. Just an "advanced" button with advanced options for advanced users
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 17:19   #252  |  Link
Trahald
Wewkiee
 
Trahald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: kashyyyk
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
We don't need more complexity. Just an "advanced" button with advanced options for advanced users
Ask Jdobbs about advanced settings. he probably sits with his mouse over the 'submit reply' button for a half an hour before he submits a post that reveals a hidden advanced setting in one of his utilities. He knows while you can say only advanced users should touch the setting (and more importantly deal with the consequences), there will be a jump in bug reports due to people messing with the setting that have no business doing so.

As you can tell while I wish microsoft didnt have to , I understand why this was done. Having worked on the phone for years in the past.
__________________
...yeah...but...why on earth would I compare apples with apples?
Trahald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 17:30   #253  |  Link
clsid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,033
Windows is full of settings and hidden tweaks.

An option for post-processing would be one that can do no harm at all.
clsid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 20:04   #254  |  Link
Manao
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
An option for post-processing would be one that can do no harm at all.
Never doubt the capability of users to create trouble with seemingly harmless options.

And in this case, most probably there's a switch in the registry to reduce/remove deblocking. But if it is, it's hidden and undocumented, thus far less liable to generate bug reports.
__________________
Manao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 20:21   #255  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manao View Post
Never doubt the capability of users to create trouble with seemingly harmless options.
Oh, yeah.

For every option, you have to weigh
  • The probability of a user who would benefit using it, proportional to that benefit.
  • The probably of a user who shouldn't use it using it anyway, proportional to the cost using it.
  • The additional test cost of testing everything each way for each option. Four on/off options just increased requirements for full test coverage by 16x!

In scrubbing the UX for a forthcoming H.264 encoder update, I pushed the team to take options out whenever we could find a good heuristic. For example, bundling speed/quality features into the complexity levels where they make sense so it can just be a slider.

Thus, Adaptive Rounding is off for Complexity 0-1, and on for 2-8, since it's always beneficial, but just a little slower. So, off for when the user wants to go super-fast, on when they're optimizing more for qualtiy.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2009, 20:49   #256  |  Link
clsid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,033
Testing is so 2008. Formal verification is way cooler.
clsid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2009, 00:03   #257  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsid View Post
Testing is so 2008. Formal verification is way cooler.
And once we have a formal metric for video quality, we'll be good to go !
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2009, 17:08   #258  |  Link
Zanthra
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17
Edit: I apologize for my idiocy. I got here from a link form elsewhere, and did not check the last post date/time.

Last edited by Zanthra; 26th July 2009 at 17:18.
Zanthra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2009, 07:41   #259  |  Link
Revgen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Can we at least agree that there's a real reason for this? You're saying excuse like codec pack and multiple decoder issues aren't an actual problem, but there's plenty of evidence here at forums.doom9.org that the contrary is true . And the people who can make it as far as here to ask for help with a problem are going to be the top portion of the audience who have tried.
And every newbie that comes in to complain about codec packs is told to get VLC player or a version of mplayer if they are having issues with codec packs or codec conflicts.

Of course Microsoft isn't going to like that, so perhaps you'd be better served creating WMP lite and WMP advanced. If people decide to use WMP Advanced, then give them a warning like "Warning: this is an ADVANCED VIDEO PLAYER meant for professionals and enthusiasts. We can't ensure that it will work the way you want it to" or something of that nature. Your OS does this every time I install a non-WHQL driver. Why not do the same for WMP?

The excuses I'm seeing from your end don't seem to add up.
__________________
Pirate: Now how would you like to die? Would you like to have your head chopped off or be burned at the stake?

Curly: Burned at the stake!

Moe: Why?

Curly: A hot steak is always better than a cold chop.

Last edited by Revgen; 27th July 2009 at 07:44.
Revgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2009, 07:55   #260  |  Link
ranpha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revgen View Post
And every newbie that comes in to complain about codec packs is told to get VLC player or a version of mplayer if they are having issues with codec packs or codec conflicts.

Of course Microsoft isn't going to like that, so perhaps you'd be better served creating WMP lite and WMP advanced. If people decide to use WMP Advanced, then give them a warning like "Warning: this is an ADVANCED VIDEO PLAYER meant for professionals and enthusiasts. We can't ensure that it will work the way you want it to" or something of that nature. Your OS does this every time I install a non-WHQL driver. Why not do the same for WMP?

The excuses I'm seeing from your end don't seem to add up.
Uhm... no, if a newbie complains about codec pack problems, he/she will usually be told to just uninstall that codec pack and then just install the Haali+MPC-HC+ffdshow combo or get a better pack such as CCCP.

And what is the difference between your proposed WMP Lite and WMP Advanced anyway? And what make you think that your WMP Advanced (application) is the same as an unsigned device driver?
ranpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.