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 > Capturing and Editing Video > New and alternative a/v containers

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13th May 2012, 22:09   #10961  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 8,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casshern View Post
This open-source plugin for foobar 2000 decodes dts-hd and true-hd. Is there any chance we will get rid of the arcsoft dll to decode these formats....

http://sourceforge.net/projects/dvdadecoder/
Quote from its readme:
Quote:
This plugin contains proprietary DTS-HD library code. To use this plugin you should have license for ArcSoft TMT software.
Seems like its just hiding the ArcSoft DLL in its own DLL.
I do not bundle the ArcSoft DLL because of legal issues. If you own TMT, you can use the DLL from there, and thats that.

ffmpeg/libav has started some work on DTS-HD decoding, for example it can now decode parts of the DTS-HD block already (the XBR extension, extra bitrate)

PS:
TrueHD can already be decoded flawlessly without the ArcSoft DLL.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders

Last edited by nevcairiel; 13th May 2012 at 22:17.
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2012, 22:32   #10962  |  Link
chaddawkins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
I use LAV and Icaros [for thumbnails]. Recently there has been a change to Icaros; it is no longer dependent on LAV. I believe they accomplished this by including avcodec, avformat, etc from ffmpeg instead of piggy-backing on your avformat-lav, avcodec-lav, etc. This is unfortunate because now I need all these lib TWICE. Would it make any difference to you if you remove the "-lav" from your files; I am hoping to put both party's files in the same folder and Icaros piggy-back off of LAV again. I can't ask the Icaros party to name their files avformat-lav, that wouldn't make sense. Is this feasible?
chaddawkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2012, 22:58   #10963  |  Link
STaRGaZeR
4:2:0 hater
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevcairiel View Post
4:2:2 would be plenty, the big visual difference is from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2
Disagree. In sources where different subsampling actually makes a difference, like in highly detailed colored letters, you could say 4:2:2 is better than 4:2:0, but it in no way can touch 4:4:4. It's the difference between being like the source and being completely different because of the later reconstruction. It also has that horrible effect in which you see stuff deformed in horizontal, but not in vertical, again because of the latter reconstruction. 4:2:0 at least is fucked up both vertically and horizontally.

That said, 4:4:4 is out of the question. Studio footage is 4:2:2, so it's highly unlikely we will ever get more than that, and that's if we ever get more than 4:2:0.
__________________
Specs, GTX970 - PLS 1440p@96Hz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manao View Post
That way, you have xxxx[p|i]yyy, where xxxx is the vertical resolution, yyy is the temporal resolution, and 'i' says the image has been irremediably destroyed.
STaRGaZeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 01:49   #10964  |  Link
Shark007
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaddawkins View Post
I use LAV and Icaros [for thumbnails]. Recently there has been a change to Icaros; it is no longer dependent on LAV.
The ffmpeg libraries produced for LAV are not compatible with Icaros 2.x. With terabyte hdd's the norm for many years already, I am surprised 8mb is such a problem for you to deal with. Icaros 2.x is not dependant on any Directshow filters being installed either. It is now a standalone product capable of thumbnailing anything ffmpeg can decode.

Last edited by Shark007; 14th May 2012 at 01:52.
Shark007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 02:02   #10965  |  Link
Andy o
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR View Post
Disagree. In sources where different subsampling actually makes a difference, like in highly detailed colored letters, you could say 4:2:2 is better than 4:2:0, but it in no way can touch 4:4:4. It's the difference between being like the source and being completely different because of the later reconstruction. It also has that horrible effect in which you see stuff deformed in horizontal, but not in vertical, again because of the latter reconstruction. 4:2:0 at least is fucked up both vertically and horizontally.

That said, 4:4:4 is out of the question. Studio footage is 4:2:2, so it's highly unlikely we will ever get more than that, and that's if we ever get more than 4:2:0.
I see it this way: wouldn't 2160p 4:2:0 already have 1080p-equivalent chroma resolution? Couldn't it be downscaled by the renderer to 1080p 4:4:4?
__________________
GA-Z87MX-D3H (Intel Z87), i7-4770, AMD 7790, Win8.1-64
Pioneer VSX-01TXH, Pioneer KRP-500M
Andy o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 06:25   #10966  |  Link
chaddawkins
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark007 View Post
The ffmpeg libraries produced for LAV are not compatible with Icaros 2.x.
Well, why not? Are LAV's lib not good enough? That's sad news, i used icaros because of it's compatibility and ease of use with LAV. I'll just keep using the previous version, it worked fine for me anyways. 8mb is not the issue, you're smarter than that.
chaddawkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 09:35   #10967  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR View Post
That said, 4:4:4 is out of the question. Studio footage is 4:2:2, so it's highly unlikely we will ever get more than that, and that's if we ever get more than 4:2:0.
Maybe some day there's enough bandwidth and space to let studio equipment record in RGB.
Also that whole YCbCr model could be replaced by YCgCo.

Enough room for improvements, but like nev said, this doesn't seem to be decided by people who are really interested in this...
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 13:39   #10968  |  Link
Soukyuu
Registered User
 
Soukyuu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 169
On the "no DVD audio w/ LAV 0.50.3 and above", it's not LAV. It's that open source dvd navigator, once I use it instead of the microsoft one, the audio on DVDs disappears, no matter the audio/video filter+renderer.
Soukyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 15:44   #10969  |  Link
droc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7
nevcairiel, how to config LAv filers in J.River Media centre? I don`t see it.
droc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 15:59   #10970  |  Link
STaRGaZeR
4:2:0 hater
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy o View Post
I see it this way: wouldn't 2160p 4:2:0 already have 1080p-equivalent chroma resolution?
Yes, but we are back at square one: chroma is still downsampled and quality is lost in the same proportion as in any other 4:2:0 media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy o View Post
Couldn't it be downscaled by the renderer to 1080p 4:4:4?
Sure, but what's the point? You want to make 2160p mainstream to downscale it back to 1080p so luma and chroma resolutions match? Sounds stupid to me for quite a few reasons. Besides, chroma is downsampled in a way that chroma and luma samples aren't taken from the same location (example).
__________________
Specs, GTX970 - PLS 1440p@96Hz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manao View Post
That way, you have xxxx[p|i]yyy, where xxxx is the vertical resolution, yyy is the temporal resolution, and 'i' says the image has been irremediably destroyed.
STaRGaZeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 16:12   #10971  |  Link
SamuriHL
Registered User
 
SamuriHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by droc View Post
nevcairiel, how to config LAv filers in J.River Media centre? I don`t see it.
You should ask on the J River forum. They use a private copy of LAV for Red October that can only be configured if you use a custom setup.
__________________
HTPC1:W10 Creator Edition, I7 3770k, GTX 1060, Pioneer Elite SC-65, Panasonic 65" 1080p Plasma
Laptop: MSI GT70 Dominator
SamuriHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 16:30   #10972  |  Link
Andy o
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR View Post
Yes, but we are back at square one: chroma is still downsampled and quality is lost in the same proportion as in any other 4:2:0 media.

Sure, but what's the point? You want to make 2160p mainstream to downscale it back to 1080p so luma and chroma resolutions match? Sounds stupid to me for quite a few reasons. Besides, chroma is downsampled in a way that chroma and luma samples aren't taken from the same location (example).
If you don't have a 2160p screen, of course. The industry is already moving to 2160p 4:2:0, so it's not me "wanting" to make it mainstream. Nobody understands what 4:4:4 means, but they do 2160p. I'm not sure what the difference would be in data rate from 1080p 4:4:4, and 2160p 4:2:0, but with 2160p 4:2:0 at least you can get both, and the former you can even get without upgrading your display (not me though, I got a Kuro).
__________________
GA-Z87MX-D3H (Intel Z87), i7-4770, AMD 7790, Win8.1-64
Pioneer VSX-01TXH, Pioneer KRP-500M

Last edited by Andy o; 14th May 2012 at 16:33.
Andy o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 16:34   #10973  |  Link
nevcairiel
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 8,848
Like STaRGaZeR said, you can't just take the 4:2:0 chroma from 2160p, because its sampled at weird positions in the image, you could get a small chroma offset (by one pixel or so)
I suppose you could devise an algorithm to compensate for that, but meh.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders
nevcairiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 18:56   #10974  |  Link
CoRoNe
Registered User
 
CoRoNe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
Hello, would it be possible to support .pls streaming links that fit this profile? I'm not able to play this stream with LAV 0.50.5 and I've never tried to play this link before but it doesn't work with LAV yet it works with Mplayer and VLC. I'm a bit confused as to why it doesn't work since LAV seems to support VP6.
A sample stream would be usefull.
__________________
My hobby website
CoRoNe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 19:58   #10975  |  Link
Pat357
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufkrawall View Post
Also that whole YCbCr model could be replaced by YCgCo.
What would be the advantages from YCgCo compared to YCbCr ?
Pat357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2012, 20:10   #10976  |  Link
Pat357
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR View Post
Yes, but we are back at square one: chroma is still downsampled and quality is lost in the same proportion as in any other 4:2:0 media.

Sure, but what's the point? You want to make 2160p mainstream to downscale it back to 1080p so luma and chroma resolutions match? Sounds stupid to me for quite a few reasons. Besides, chroma is downscaled in a way that chroma and luma samples aren't taken from the same location (example).
It would be possible to down scale 2160p to 1080p with improved chroma (almost 4:4:4) by writing dedicated shaders to to the conversion.
It doesn't seem even to be hard to write the shader.
Whether this is a good solution just to get full chroma 1080p is another question.
Using 2160p would be at least a waste of bandwidth and storage capacity if all you need is 444 1080p.

1080p 420 -> 2160p 420 means about 4x more bandtwith (picture is about 4x "bigger")
1080p 420 -> 1080p 444 is about 2x more bandwith IIRC

Last edited by Pat357; 14th May 2012 at 20:26.
Pat357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2012, 00:22   #10977  |  Link
aufkrawall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat357 View Post
What would be the advantages from YCgCo compared to YCbCr ?
Maybe you could use a lower bitrate with YCgCo since there's no loss from RGB conversion.

If everything could be reinvented, why should someone choose YCbCr over YCgCo?
aufkrawall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2012, 00:53   #10978  |  Link
Fadeout
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 150
Anyone knows if chapter support has been added to the splitter at some point?
Fadeout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2012, 02:06   #10979  |  Link
Gaius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fadeout View Post
Anyone knows if chapter support has been added to the splitter at some point?
Hasn't happened yet and doesn't look like it will happen for quite a while.
Gaius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th May 2012, 02:09   #10980  |  Link
STaRGaZeR
4:2:0 hater
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy o View Post
If you don't have a 2160p screen, of course. The industry is already moving to 2160p 4:2:0, so it's not me "wanting" to make it mainstream. Nobody understands what 4:4:4 means, but they do 2160p. I'm not sure what the difference would be in data rate from 1080p 4:4:4, and 2160p 4:2:0, but with 2160p 4:2:0 at least you can get both, and the former you can even get without upgrading your display (not me though, I got a Kuro).
The conversion you mention, while possible but with unknown results, is an horrible hack no matter how you look at it. In what kind of situation would you prefer hacky 1080p 4:4:4 from 2160p instead of that 2160p stream untouched? Are you planning to do that in order to use your current display instead of enjoying 2160p in all its glory?

Nice caps in that thread BTW, shows clearly the effects of subsampling on colored letters. I'm not sure what I prefer, the more but evenly distributed blurriness of 4:2:0 or the less pronounced but uneven blur of 4:2:2. One thing is certain, I hate both of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat357 View Post
Whether this is a good solution just to get full chroma 1080p is another question.
Using 2160p would be at least a waste of bandwidth and storage capacity if all you need is 444 1080p.
Exactly my point. Given that you have a real 2160p source, the last thing I'd do is resize it to something smaller.
__________________
Specs, GTX970 - PLS 1440p@96Hz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manao View Post
That way, you have xxxx[p|i]yyy, where xxxx is the vertical resolution, yyy is the temporal resolution, and 'i' says the image has been irremediably destroyed.
STaRGaZeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
decoders, directshow, filters, splitter

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 13:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.