x264 development

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by Sharktooth

why waste time on VFW? Let it die.

I second that.

[IgorC]

I'm third.

[shon3i]

And i am First who is against

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by shon3i

And i am First who is against

I don;t get it. Is compatibility the only reason you want it to stay. the native mp4 editing tools are appearing now. It's like telling nintendo that they have to make their new console compatible with the original NES.

[Sharktooth]

VFW is old, is buggy, is slow, is limited, doesnt support many of the new codecs features, creates problems when editing, doesnt support variable bitrate, doesnt support variable framerate, doesnt support streaming, etc...
it's simply old and outdated and must die so a new tech can replace it.

[Eretria-chan]

Originally Posted by shon3i

And i am First who is against

I second that.
There is nothing prevent something new to replace VFW and until that time, VFW should stay around methinks.

[nexus]

I don't know if this bug is known. Sorry, if it was mentioned a few pages before.

Since a few revisions of x264 I get the following error message if I turn on "turbo":

[shon3i]

Originally Posted by Sharktooth

VFW is old, is buggy, is slow, is limited, doesnt support many of the new codecs features, creates problems when editing, doesnt support variable bitrate, doesnt support variable framerate, doesnt support streaming, etc...
it's simply old and outdated and must die so a new tech can replace it.

I know all of that but developers is not try to implement that options.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally Posted by Sharktooth

VFW is old, is buggy, is slow, is limited, doesnt support many of the new codecs features, creates problems when editing, doesnt support variable bitrate, doesnt support variable framerate, doesnt support streaming, etc...
it's simply old and outdated and must die so a new tech can replace it.

Ehh, not again... We already had this debate several times, and i explained you several times that most of your arguments are simply not true.

VFW is old indeed (then again, quicktime, which mp4 is based on, is even older), but it is not buggy, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. AVC in vfw interface has exactly the same issue ASP had (b-frame lag at editing, no issues at playbacking), and i don't remember that anyone had any problems with xvid or divx in this regard. VFW is not slower (as only the interface is different, and it has nearly no overhead), and there is no feature in the AVC standard what couldn't be used in VFW interface (the fact that not every feature is implemented in the vfw version is a completely different question). Variable frame rate and streaming are indeed not supported, but i cannot imagine why would i need these features.

I just cannot understand why you guys feel so threatened by the vfw version that you have to keep spreading these misinformations.

[LigH]

You can watch the image of the error message already in a thread in the german board. But it looks rather like a MeGUI problem than a x264 bug.
__

@ nexus:

The MeGUI thread is here.

[bond]

Originally Posted by Tommy Carrot

Ehh, not again... We already had this debate several times, and i explained you several times that most of your arguments are simply not true.

VFW is old indeed (then again, quicktime, which mp4 is based on, is even older), but it is not buggy, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. AVC in vfw interface has exactly the same issue ASP had (b-frame lag at editing, no issues at playbacking), and i don't remember that anyone had any problems with xvid or divx in this regard. VFW is not slower (as only the interface is different, and it has nearly no overhead), and there is no feature in the AVC standard what couldn't be used in VFW interface (the fact that not every feature is implemented in the vfw version is a completely different question). Variable frame rate and streaming are indeed not supported, but i cannot imagine why would i need these features.

I just cannot understand why you guys feel so threatened by the vfw version that you have to keep spreading these misinformations.

tommy carrot, you tell us we dont listen to your arguments?

i tell you you dont listen to ours, cause if you would, you would not "keep spreading these misinformations"

[Sharktooth]

Originally Posted by LigH

You can watch the image of the error message already in a thread in the german board. But it looks rather like a MeGUI problem than a x264 bug.
__

@ nexus:

The MeGUI thread is here.

yeah, it's related to megui and not to x264.

@Tommy Carrot: it's not limited to b.frames, there are also other features (forward and backward multiple reference frames, frames reordering etc.) that are NOT COMPATIBLE NOR SUPPORTED by VFW (and AVI).
Until VFW is alive there will be small or no interest in creating editing software based on other techs just coz there's virtual dub(mod).
Let vfw die and let the coders develop software based on new technologies.

[Tommy Carrot]

Bond, i think every argument i said is true. I don't say people should use vfw, and i'm perfectly aware of the limitations of it, but sometimes the "anti-vfw league" is saying ridiculous things here, and i feel i have to address the issue. Spreading misinformations, even with good intentions, just to convince people is not ok IMO.

Sharktooth: the mentioned problems are all related to the b-frames, p-frames have no problem with multiple references.

Anyway, i don't wish to continue this debate, let's just say that theoretically i agree with you, i just think you are too quick to bury vfw before any proper alternative could emerge. I'm following closely the developments of the mkv and mp4 manipulator applications, but they are nowhere close to being usable for more complex editing jobs. I think until then the vfw version is still necessary.

[Sharktooth]

spreading misinformation?!?
MPEG-4 ASP was HACKED in VFW... AVC is HACKED in VFW...
what misinformation? VFW doesnt support MPEG-4 (both v3 and v10).
If you say something different it's you spreading misinformation.

[Eretria-chan]

So far, I can see the VFW is good enough for the casual user. And the more advanced tools out there means you have to download additional huge programs and learn them.
I don't see why VFW is so incredibly bad. Make another system like VFW if you think it is so bad. If it really is as good as VFW, it might just one day replace it.

[bond]

guys, lets cool down plz

[Sharktooth]

There is... GStreamer... DirectShow...
But no virtual dub for DirectShow nor for GStreamer...
Thanx to VFW.
BTW, VFW is not good at all... it causes big problems with AVC.

[bond]

well once avidemux supports mp4 output correctly, there will be no reason for using x264 with avi/vfw anymore

[shon3i]

But still is not same. Nobody can change virtualdub

[Sharktooth]

infact it's much better...
stick with your jurassical software and tech then and speak for yourself.