FairUse 2.6 is out - Page 6

lakedude · 3rd March 2004, 01:06

fu2k and UMP

I love you guys! Well I love FairUse anyway. Too bad I can't get ya to take a donation. I use FU more than any other program and to me it is worth chargin for.

fu2k you made a wonderful program, ahead of its time, rock solid. bullet proof, almost perfect.

UMP you are finishing what was started in a great way. Your additions are pretty much exacty what FU needed. You do not give yourself enough credit sometimes.

Many Thanks and keep up the good work!

UMP · 3rd March 2004, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by lakedude
Too bad I can't get ya to take a donation.

This might change in the near future

Thank you for your support,

ump

RathO · 10th March 2004, 06:28

@UMP: FairUse is just getting better and better with its 0.40 version!

1- I was wondering if its possible to add a "Browse" button so we can decide where (on wich hard-disk) the final file will be written?

2- Would be great to be able to create a FairUse project with already unencrypted vob files on our hard-disk.

3- Are you planning to add some options for filters? (now im thinking about Convolution3d and maybe some other usefull filters...)

Keep up the good work!

Regards

UMP · 10th March 2004, 09:45

1. this is not planned ATM

2. you might build an iso image and mount it with daemon-tools

3. the "original resize" mode features built-in filters, but this mode is currently about 2-3 times slower than the MMX version (without filters).

mikegun · 10th March 2004, 13:07

hi @ all

maybe I missed something but I still do not understand why the thread for this great programm is in the general discussion forum ??

regards,

m.

RathO · 10th March 2004, 14:44

@UMP:

What are the filters the original resize mode is currently using?
Is it that hard to add a button so the user can decide where to write the final file?

Thank you for your reply.

Regards

UMP · 10th March 2004, 15:59

@mikegun : I guess it is because it can encode to both XviD and DivX, so it wouldn't fit in one of the two forums.

@RathO: it wouldn't be _that_ hard, but I don't feel this to be a high priority task.

Regards,

ump

lakedude · 11th March 2004, 22:55

Quote:

maybe I missed something but I still do not understand why the thread for this great programm is in the general discussion forum ??

Good question. I think the problem is that FU is too reliable and doesn't generate enough traffic. They explained that they monitored the traffic and FU just don't generate any. Too simple and too reliable. Who ever needs to ask questions? The whole thing is self explanatory.

mikegun · 12th March 2004, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by lakedude
Good question. I think the problem is that FU is too reliable and doesn't generate enough traffic. They explained that they monitored the traffic and FU just don't generate any. Too simple and too reliable. Who ever needs to ask questions? The whole thing is self explanatory.

hehe, thats a good point.

rgds.

mikegun

UMP · 13th March 2004, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by lakedude
Good question. I think the problem is that FU is too reliable and doesn't generate enough traffic. They explained that they monitored the traffic and FU just don't generate any. Too simple and too reliable. Who ever needs to ask questions? The whole thing is self explanatory.

Is this a joke or is this serious ?

RathO · 13th March 2004, 00:58

Too bad, it would be a great option that would push me to use FU over my old classic method. It is hard-disk-killer to process-mux movies on a single hd IMO and i just hate that.

[no offense here]
OK, let's see if the money can bring this option... i'll make a little contribution via Paypal if it gets on soon

[/no offense here]

Also, would be great to have more details about what exactly is the "old resize" and what is the "new one".

Can you publish on your website your to-do list if possible?

Keep up the good work UMP!

Regards

UMP · 13th March 2004, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by RathO
[no offense here]
OK, let's see if the money can bring this option... i'll make a little contribution via Paypal if it gets on soon
[/no offense here]

From the FU donation page : "In short, I am not selling user support or new features implementation."

You should only donate if you want to _donate_.

Quote:

Also, would be great to have more details about what exactly is the "old resize" and what is the "new one".

The "original resize" is a bicubic resizer written in C. The "new one" is an MMX-optimized bilinear resizer.

Bilinear resizing is usually considered to be better than bicubic when it comes to shrinking the picture.

Regards,

ump

ender · 13th March 2004, 18:58

Hi !

Great work, however for us PocketPC & PALM Users it would be GREAT to have a simple "rotate 90°" Option, could you implement that in a next version ??

Thanks for Fair use anyways !!!

Ender

UMP · 13th March 2004, 20:16

This is already on the TODO list, through it's not my number 1 priority

Regards,

ump

halbacht · 14th March 2004, 12:58

Well guys, I am not sure whether what I am going to describe here belongs to this thread, but I simply don't want to start a new one with my first post in this forum...

Let's go: I have a 16:9 TV, standalone MPEG4 player and an anamorhic (16:9) DVD with a 2,35:1 film.

What I want to do is to make a XVID AVI using FU, but optimized for watching on my TV set, it means it should contain anamorhic frames. Although it would be nice if I there were a SW player that can automatically handle such anamorhic AVIs on the comuter, it's not my primary concern at the moment.

To do such thing with FU is at the moment not possible.

Why? Because FU does not support native output of anamorhic material.

I mean in the FU Wizard resolution screen, you can pick up 'Output Video Size' that are found to be suitable (using FU intern logic) either for 'TV Aspect Ratio' (equals to 59:54 PAL PAR), or not which probably defaults to computer monitor display with 1:1 PAR. For anamorhic DVDs, FU realizes that in both cases you will have to resize, what is exactly what you need when you are going to watch the film on the computer monitor. So the resolutions that one can use for an output video size are limited to those ones which have a resizing included.

But for 16:9 TV sets this simply means the lost of vertical resolution and advantages that anamorhic DVDs bring with.

To be (hopefully) clear, that is the exact sequence of what happens:

- After first steps I cropped the horizontal black bars, and after that I have frames with 704x432 resolution.
- The best output resolution offered by FU in this case is 704x320 (with 'TV Aspect Ratio' set).
- When I choose this resolution, I get 'normal' frames in AVI, BUT (excuse for caps) I loose 112 lines of vertical resolution.
- When I play such material on my TV, I get squieshed picture with DAR ~ 3:1. That's because my TV set in automatic mode have a 'feature' to always stretch the lines to fill in the full screen.
- Well, as a 'workaround' I use a 'zoom' feature of a TV set which stretch the picture vertically so that the final DAR is as the original one (2.35:1), but I know that I have lost about 33% of vertical resolution, and that my favourite film can look much better if played without vertical streching...

I think it would be great if the FU Wizard get one additional 'check box' (or radio box) which allow to set the output video size to resolutions which correspond to native anamorhic build. In practice it should equal (in at least one most ineteresting case) not to do resizing at all, which can only additionally speed up the whole process.

And chances are good that the number of people using stanalones MPEG4 players and 16:9 TVs will increase in future.

One more question for MPU:

Afaik the black-white luminance range for watching on PCs is 0-255, while for TV it is 16-236 or so.
How it is handled in FU at the moment? I mean is the output optimized for PC (analog to Avisynth filter colorYUV with 'levels' parameter set to "TV->PC")?

If it is so it would be great if it can be configurable as well, so when preparing the material targeted for watching on TV the original luminance range stay the same as original...

I have a strange feeling that my XVIDs when looking using standalone player are a little darker then on my PC and I think that maybe can be a reason.

And finally my personal message (MPU, fu2k):

you have done a great job, guys. It was a long way to go, a lot of wonderful people contributed to 'fair use' ideas considerable amount of their time (and lives), and a lot of extraorinary good and
useful products are available at the moment.

But with your product a ripping has become a 'no brainer' as it should be. There are a lot of us that prefer this all-in-one way, always or at least sometimes. That's a way to find time to do something else in our lives far away from computer screens...

just keep on...

RathO · 16th March 2004, 06:44

@UMP: I have a fullscreen movie, and i'm wondering why the resolution choosed by FU doesn't match the 4:3 AR.

For a 1 cd rip, i always use 512x384 res >> 4:3. (I'd go 640x480 for a 2 cd rip, wich is not the case right now...).
The preferred resolutions that shows FU, 512x384 does not appear, and the preferred res are not 4:3.

Is the problem related with the cropping?
Should we specify to FU the source AR? >> 4:3 or 16:9?

Regards

UMP · 16th March 2004, 13:22

Quote:

And chances are good that the number of people using stanalones MPEG4 players and 16:9 TVs will increase in future.

Anamorphic encoding would be very easy to implement, but my fear this would lead to confusion for many users, provided that it seems that the final AR on the display will highly depend on the used devices rather than the encoding settings.
I mean : an anamorphic encoding will display fine on _your_ TV set with _your_ standalone player, but there is no guarantee how the same encoding would display with another hardware (no to speak about PC monitor). I don't like the idea to implement "try and see if it works for you" features in FairUse.

Quote:

Afaik the black-white luminance range for watching on PCs is 0-255, while for TV it is 16-236 or so.

The luminance range is currently 0-255.

@RathO: FU already knows the source AR. If you're looking only to predefined standard resolutions, you might try with no cropping at all, through this is not recommended.

Regards,

ump

halbacht · 16th March 2004, 15:16

@UMP:I respect your fear to put inside one all-in-one and easy-to-use tool one such (advanced?) feature. But think again:

Quote:

I mean : an anamorphic encoding will display fine on _your_ TV set with _your_ standalone player, but there is no guarantee how the same encoding would display with another hardware (no to speak about PC monitor). I don't like the idea to implement "try and see if it works for you" features in FairUse.

First of all, this is a story about ALL 16:9 TV sets and ALL MPEG4 stadalone players... And these people are slowely coming with their needs and desires, look in AGK threads....

It took me some time to understand what's happening and to realize that the picture I get can be much better without (almost) any development effort. At the beginning I had the feeling that something is wrong, but I didn't figured out what. There are a lot of newbies that are using ripping for the same reason as me, but are simply not aware that they easily can get much better results. I mean they are maybe happy with what they get, but they (and me) will be much happier if we get something much better...

As you stated it is very easy to implement

, BUT you don't give it to us

. So (no offend here) this reminds me on my database admin: I know that something exist, BUT he simply don't give me the right to use it

! Na ja, I don't like him anyhow...

BUT, I like you and your work and respect all what you put inside this program (I am a sw developer as well). I am just telling you:

HEJ, your program can perform MUCH better in one important use case and it is easy to do, so use the chance and do it.
You will be the first to offer such feature in one all-in-one tool.
Don't disappoint me...

To avoid any doubt (for unexperienced users) you need to either:
- make this feature available only in expert mode, or
- use clear statement that the feature is exclusively for 16:9 TV sets

And nothing more, everybode will understand it, even newbies are not sooooo blind

, believe me!

Concerning luminance:

Quote:

The luminance range is currently 0-255.

Thank you very much for answer, it means the same problem: for watching on TV sets it would be very nice if (ONLY in expert mode) we can adjust the luminance level to be appropriate for watching our XDIVs on TV sets (in this case 16:9 or 4:3 doesn't matter, of course).

thanks for reply,
regards halbacht

RathO · 16th March 2004, 16:51

What i mean is that with AR 4:3, 512x384 should be available in the preferred res. When FU crops using AutoSet, the AR % of error should be 0%, wich is not the case right now with its ~1.xxx% AR error.

I know its no big deal, but you know...

J'te remercie

Regards

UMP · 16th March 2004, 17:36

What are the nearest displayed resolutions ?

10th March 2004, 06:28	#103 \| Link
RathO tha Canadian Soldier Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 216	My 2 cents... @UMP: FairUse is just getting better and better with its 0.40 version! 1- I was wondering if its possible to add a "Browse" button so we can decide where (on wich hard-disk) the final file will be written? 2- Would be great to be able to create a FairUse project with already unencrypted vob files on our hard-disk. 3- Are you planning to add some options for filters? (now im thinking about Convolution3d and maybe some other usefull filters...) Keep up the good work! Regards __________________ Sly tHE RathO "Pour le meilleur ou jusqu'a temps que je m'ecoeure!"

10th March 2004, 13:07	#105 \| Link
mikegun one inch man Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 263	hi @ all maybe I missed something but I still do not understand why the thread for this great programm is in the general discussion forum ?? regards, m. __________________ - free speech for the dumb -

10th March 2004, 14:44	#106 \| Link
RathO tha Canadian Soldier Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 216	@UMP: What are the filters the original resize mode is currently using? Is it that hard to add a button so the user can decide where to write the final file? Thank you for your reply. Regards __________________ Sly tHE RathO "Pour le meilleur ou jusqu'a temps que je m'ecoeure!"

13th March 2004, 00:58	#111 \| Link
RathO tha Canadian Soldier Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 216	About the destination of final written file... Too bad, it would be a great option that would push me to use FU over my old classic method. It is hard-disk-killer to process-mux movies on a single hd IMO and i just hate that. [no offense here] OK, let's see if the money can bring this option... i'll make a little contribution via Paypal if it gets on soon [/no offense here] Also, would be great to have more details about what exactly is the "old resize" and what is the "new one". Can you publish on your website your to-do list if possible? Keep up the good work UMP! Regards __________________ Sly tHE RathO "Pour le meilleur ou jusqu'a temps que je m'ecoeure!"

14th March 2004, 12:58	#115 \| Link
halbacht Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: vienna, austria Posts: 12	Anamorphic output using FU? Well guys, I am not sure whether what I am going to describe here belongs to this thread, but I simply don't want to start a new one with my first post in this forum... Let's go: I have a 16:9 TV, standalone MPEG4 player and an anamorhic (16:9) DVD with a 2,35:1 film. What I want to do is to make a XVID AVI using FU, but optimized for watching on my TV set, it means it should contain anamorhic frames. Although it would be nice if I there were a SW player that can automatically handle such anamorhic AVIs on the comuter, it's not my primary concern at the moment. To do such thing with FU is at the moment not possible. Why? Because FU does not support native output of anamorhic material. I mean in the FU Wizard resolution screen, you can pick up 'Output Video Size' that are found to be suitable (using FU intern logic) either for 'TV Aspect Ratio' (equals to 59:54 PAL PAR), or not which probably defaults to computer monitor display with 1:1 PAR. For anamorhic DVDs, FU realizes that in both cases you will have to resize, what is exactly what you need when you are going to watch the film on the computer monitor. So the resolutions that one can use for an output video size are limited to those ones which have a resizing included. But for 16:9 TV sets this simply means the lost of vertical resolution and advantages that anamorhic DVDs bring with. To be (hopefully) clear, that is the exact sequence of what happens: - After first steps I cropped the horizontal black bars, and after that I have frames with 704x432 resolution. - The best output resolution offered by FU in this case is 704x320 (with 'TV Aspect Ratio' set). - When I choose this resolution, I get 'normal' frames in AVI, BUT (excuse for caps) I loose 112 lines of vertical resolution. - When I play such material on my TV, I get squieshed picture with DAR ~ 3:1. That's because my TV set in automatic mode have a 'feature' to always stretch the lines to fill in the full screen. - Well, as a 'workaround' I use a 'zoom' feature of a TV set which stretch the picture vertically so that the final DAR is as the original one (2.35:1), but I know that I have lost about 33% of vertical resolution, and that my favourite film can look much better if played without vertical streching... I think it would be great if the FU Wizard get one additional 'check box' (or radio box) which allow to set the output video size to resolutions which correspond to native anamorhic build. In practice it should equal (in at least one most ineteresting case) not to do resizing at all, which can only additionally speed up the whole process. And chances are good that the number of people using stanalones MPEG4 players and 16:9 TVs will increase in future. One more question for MPU: Afaik the black-white luminance range for watching on PCs is 0-255, while for TV it is 16-236 or so. How it is handled in FU at the moment? I mean is the output optimized for PC (analog to Avisynth filter colorYUV with 'levels' parameter set to "TV->PC")? If it is so it would be great if it can be configurable as well, so when preparing the material targeted for watching on TV the original luminance range stay the same as original... I have a strange feeling that my XVIDs when looking using standalone player are a little darker then on my PC and I think that maybe can be a reason. And finally my personal message (MPU, fu2k): you have done a great job, guys. It was a long way to go, a lot of wonderful people contributed to 'fair use' ideas considerable amount of their time (and lives), and a lot of extraorinary good and useful products are available at the moment. But with your product a ripping has become a 'no brainer' as it should be. There are a lot of us that prefer this all-in-one way, always or at least sometimes. That's a way to find time to do something else in our lives far away from computer screens... just keep on... Last edited by halbacht; 15th March 2004 at 13:00.

3rd March 2004, 01:06	#101 \| Link
lakedude Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48	fu2k and UMP I love you guys! Well I love FairUse anyway. Too bad I can't get ya to take a donation. I use FU more than any other program and to me it is worth chargin for. fu2k you made a wonderful program, ahead of its time, rock solid. bullet proof, almost perfect. UMP you are finishing what was started in a great way. Your additions are pretty much exacty what FU needed. You do not give yourself enough credit sometimes. Many Thanks and keep up the good work!

10th March 2004, 09:45	#104 \| Link
UMP Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 174	1. this is not planned ATM 2. you might build an iso image and mount it with daemon-tools 3. the "original resize" mode features built-in filters, but this mode is currently about 2-3 times slower than the MMX version (without filters).

10th March 2004, 15:59	#107 \| Link
UMP Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 174	@mikegun : I guess it is because it can encode to both XviD and DivX, so it wouldn't fit in one of the two forums. @RathO: it wouldn't be _that_ hard, but I don't feel this to be a high priority task. Regards, ump

13th March 2004, 18:58	#113 \| Link
ender Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 37	Hi ! Great work, however for us PocketPC & PALM Users it would be GREAT to have a simple "rotate 90°" Option, could you implement that in a next version ?? Thanks for Fair use anyways !!! Ender

13th March 2004, 20:16	#114 \| Link
UMP Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 174	This is already on the TODO list, through it's not my number 1 priority Regards, ump

16th March 2004, 06:44	#116 \| Link
RathO tha Canadian Soldier Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 216	Question about resolutions @UMP: I have a fullscreen movie, and i'm wondering why the resolution choosed by FU doesn't match the 4:3 AR. For a 1 cd rip, i always use 512x384 res >> 4:3. (I'd go 640x480 for a 2 cd rip, wich is not the case right now...). The preferred resolutions that shows FU, 512x384 does not appear, and the preferred res are not 4:3. Is the problem related with the cropping? Should we specify to FU the source AR? >> 4:3 or 16:9? Regards __________________ Sly tHE RathO "Pour le meilleur ou jusqu'a temps que je m'ecoeure!"

16th March 2004, 16:51	#119 \| Link
RathO tha Canadian Soldier Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 216	What i mean is that with AR 4:3, 512x384 should be available in the preferred res. When FU crops using AutoSet, the AR % of error should be 0%, wich is not the case right now with its ~1.xxx% AR error. I know its no big deal, but you know... J'te remercie Regards __________________ Sly tHE RathO "Pour le meilleur ou jusqu'a temps que je m'ecoeure!"

16th March 2004, 17:36	#120 \| Link
UMP Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 174	What are the nearest displayed resolutions ?