DiAVC decoder, yet another fast H.264 high profile decoder - Page 22

schweinsz · 1st January 2010, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

With the Beta release I have a strange problem: The video is jumping back and forth like crazy

I went back to the Alpha (2009-12-14) and problem is gone...

No, you are cheated by your cache, delete your cache and re-download the beta-version. The alpha-version is expired.

LoRd_MuldeR · 1st January 2010, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by schweinsz

No, you are cheated by your cache, delete your cache and re-download the beta-version. The alpha-version is expired.

What cache? I had the Alpha release (2009-12-14) still on my HDD and that version works okay for me - apparently.

However as soon as I update to the latest Beta (file date 2010-01-02) I get the problem described above.

I switched the versions several times (also unregistred and re-registred the filter every time) and clearly the Alpha works, the Beta not

I'm using MPC-HC with EVR renderer and I tested various H.264 files. They all show the same behavior...

(BTW: I can record the screen output with my digicam, if you want)

Code:

MD5 of DiAVC.ax (2009-12-14): b5e002c7ff8e0525bb5fd57bbe0190f4
MD5 of DiAVC.ax (2010-01-02): 96140b5a86b294584bc7fc7f23ad8486

schweinsz · 1st January 2010, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

What cache? I had the Alpha release (2009-12-14) still on my HDD and that version works okay for me - apparently.

However as soon as I update to the latest Beta (file date 2010-01-02) I get the problem described above.

I switched the versions several times (also unregistred and re-registred the filter every time) and clearly the Alpha works, the Beta not

I'm using MPC-HC with EVR renderer and I tested various H.264 files. They all show the same behavior...

(BTW: I can record the screen output with my digicam, if you want)

Code:

MD5 of DiAVC.ax (2009-12-14): b5e002c7ff8e0525bb5fd57bbe0190f4
MD5 of DiAVC.ax (2010-01-02): 96140b5a86b294584bc7fc7f23ad8486

jumping back and forth is the appearance of a outdated version. The alpha version is expired now. I review my code just now but I can't find any problem. Did you even modify your time to after 20100125 and run the DiAVC?

LoRd_MuldeR · 1st January 2010, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by schweinsz

jumping back and forth is the appearance of a outdated version. The alpha version is expired now.

Well, it apparently works here, in contrast to the Beta

Quote:

Originally Posted by schweinsz

I review my code just now but I can't find any problem. Did you even modify your time to after 20100125 and run the DiAVC?

You mean the global system time?

Yes, some of the software I'm developing includes "Auto Update" features, so I sometimes have to adjust the global system to some future date for testing/debugging.

I hope you won't tell me that DiAVC prohibits the user to adjust the global system time...

(Note: I always sync my global system time with the Windows timeserver after I had to adjust it for testing purpose, so unless DiAVC installs some "hidden" daemon/driver that contentiously monitors the global system time, it shouldn't have seen any date after 2010-01-01 until now ^^)

schweinsz · 1st January 2010, 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

Well, it apparently works here, in contrast to the Beta

You mean the global system time?

Yes, some of the software I'm developing includes "Auto Update" features, so I sometimes have to adjust the global system to some future date for testing/debugging.

I hope you won't tell me that DiAVC prohibits the user to adjust the global system time...

(Note: I always sync my global system time with the Windows timeserver after I had to adjust it for testing purpose, so unless DiAVC installs some "hidden" daemon/driver that contentiously monitors the global system time, it shouldn't have seen any date after 2010-01-01 until now ^^)

Only reading system time can be skipped by modifying it simplify, so I invented some new method to read more time information.
The DiAVC is a pure ring3 application and have not any "hidden" daemon/driver that contentiously monitors the global system time, and the DiAVC have none access to internet.

LoRd_MuldeR · 1st January 2010, 23:29

Wait, so DiAVC scans the Event Log for events of "future" date and will expire if it finds such entries?

Anyway, I scanned the local event history and I couldn't find any events that have a later date than 2010-01-01.

Well, most likely DiAVC has more sophisticated methods to find the latest date ever configured on a system and you probably won't tell us too many details

It seems that means I won't be able to use the Beta version then...

schweinsz · 1st January 2010, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

Wait, so DiAVC scans the Event Log for events of "future" date and will expire if it finds such entries?

Anyway, I scanned the local event history and I couldn't find any events that have a later date than 2010-01-01.

Well, most likely DiAVC has more sophisticated methods to find the latest date ever configured on a system and you probably won't tell us too many details

It seems that means I won't be able to use the Beta version then...

I ever invented more but only these are used.

LoRd_MuldeR · 1st January 2010, 23:51

D'oh! I indeed found a process that was started at a "future" date. Damn TortoiseSVNCache process again

Problem is resolved now, thanks

BTW: Why that strange behavior when DiAVC expires? Wouldn't a message box that tells the user what is going on be more adequate?

Especially if you want to motivate people to buy the full version

schweinsz · 1st January 2010, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

D'oh! I indeed found a process that was started at a "future" date. Damn TortoiseSVNCache process again

Problem is resolved now, thanks

BTW: Why that strange behavior when DiAVC expires? Wouldn't a message box that tells the user what is going on be more adequate?

Especially if you want to motivate people to buy the full version

Ok, I will add a message box.

STaRGaZeR · 2nd January 2010, 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by schweinsz

A new bata version is available.
changes:
fix a bug (a fault use of a sse3 code in sse2 functions).

Great thanks to ForceX, STaRGaZeR, Fadeout and the_corona for their help.

Yep, now it works here

However it's slower than both ffmpeg-mt and CoreAVC. I have not tested timecodec, but in real world scenarios the CPU usage is higher and videos that are in the verge of stuttering because of not enough CPU power with those decoders do stutter with DiAVC.

schweinsz · 2nd January 2010, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Yep, now it works here

However it's slower than both ffmpeg-mt and CoreAVC. I have not tested timecodec, but in real world scenarios the CPU usage is higher and videos that are in the verge of being unplayable with those decoders are unplayable with DiAVC.

I disable multi-thread for single-core old cpu and I don't know if it help or hurt the performance. You can test it using the timecodec then I can improve it. The current design of the DiAVC never drop any frames except the playbacking start and the start after a seeking. I can do some trick to improve the performance when hard.

Disabled · 2nd January 2010, 01:11

With all those protections I wonder, what protections will there be on the final version? I hope you don't add stupid things like online activation to it. The date checks are only for the beta versions and will be removed in the final (paid) version I guess? Is the anti debug code gone for good? Anything else we should know?

STaRGaZeR · 2nd January 2010, 01:13

Code:

DiAVC: 

User: 13s, kernel: 0s, total: 13s, real: 132s, fps: 303.4, dfps: 31.8

CoreAVC 1.9.5:

User: 99s, kernel: 0s, total: 99s, real: 104s, fps: 42.3, dfps: 40.3

ffmpeg-mt, 1 thread:

User: 116s, kernel: 0s, total: 117s, real: 121s, fps: 36.0, dfps: 34.6

ffmpeg-mt, 4 threads:

User: 12s, kernel: 0s, total: 12s, real: 139s, fps: 343.2, dfps: 30.3

libavcodec:

User: 115s, kernel: 0s, total: 115s, real: 121s, fps: 36.6, dfps: 34.8

Apple trailer, 1080p24. With DiAVC I can't do anything else, Windows is sloooow. Even closing MPC-HC takes at least 5 seconds. And all of them stutter with some parts of the video, CoreAVC may look faster and enough here but in reality it isn't.

yesgrey · 2nd January 2010, 01:51

I tested it and the results are exactly the same as with the previous beta.

Fadeout · 2nd January 2010, 02:16

Latest beta works. The problem with subtitles still there.

1080p clip at L5.1 on a Core 2 Duo E8400.

DiAVC beta:
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 18s, fps: 637.4, dfps: 79.7
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 18s, fps: 604.0, dfps: 80.2
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 18s, fps: 655.4, dfps: 79.7

CoreAVC2:
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 22s, fps: 770.1, dfps: 63.1
User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 23s, fps: 733.5, dfps: 62.7
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 22s, fps: 655.4, dfps: 63.1

Same clip, Athlon 64 3500+.

DiAVC beta:
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 56s, fps: 532.1, dfps: 25.5
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 56s, fps: 536.0, dfps: 25.6
User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 56s, fps: 530.1, dfps: 25.6

CoreAVC2:
User: 64s, kernel: 0s, total: 64s, real: 64s, fps: 22.5, dfps: 22.4
User: 64s, kernel: 0s, total: 64s, real: 64s, fps: 22.4, dfps: 22.3
User: 64s, kernel: 0s, total: 64s, real: 64s, fps: 22.4, dfps: 22.3

The real CPU usage on the Athlon is very similar to CoreAVC, I only had problems making subtitles works since DirectVobSub gets loaded before DiAVC and I only see the first frame of a video and nothing else (time moves but the video is freezed). CoreAVC works and the problem with DiAVC clears if I block DirectVobSub.

On the Core 2 Duo subtitles load correctly, but there's the problem with them being delayed in respect to the video/audio.

STaRGaZeR · 2nd January 2010, 02:30

Possible explanation of the low perfomance of DiAVC with PentiumM: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...postcount=5508

schweinsz · 2nd January 2010, 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disabled

With all those protections I wonder, what protections will there be on the final version? I hope you don't add stupid things like online activation to it. The date checks are only for the beta versions and will be removed in the final (paid) version I guess? Is the anti debug code gone for good? Anything else we should know?

The final version will add registration according your machine feature without any online activation, and the DiAVC will never have any access to internet. The date checks will be deleted in the final version.

schweinsz · 2nd January 2010, 06:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Possible explanation of the low perfomance of DiAVC with PentiumM: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...postcount=5508

The slower SSE2 can't give such a big degration. I suspend that the pentiumM has a super bad thread function support.

dZeus · 2nd January 2010, 14:37

Will non-SSE2 capable CPUs be supported in future? I'd love to be able to play back higher res/bitrate AVC on my Pentium3-1400S HTPC.

schweinsz · 2nd January 2010, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by dZeus

Will non-SSE2 capable CPUs be supported in future? I'd love to be able to play back higher res/bitrate AVC on my Pentium3-1400S HTPC.

It is in plan, but currently I am working on others.

1st January 2010, 23:29	#426 \| Link
LoRd_MuldeR Software Developer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Last House on Slunk Street Posts: 13,248	Wait, so DiAVC scans the Event Log for events of "future" date and will expire if it finds such entries? Anyway, I scanned the local event history and I couldn't find any events that have a later date than 2010-01-01. Well, most likely DiAVC has more sophisticated methods to find the latest date ever configured on a system and you probably won't tell us too many details It seems that means I won't be able to use the Beta version then... __________________ Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

1st January 2010, 23:51	#428 \| Link
LoRd_MuldeR Software Developer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Last House on Slunk Street Posts: 13,248	D'oh! I indeed found a process that was started at a "future" date. Damn TortoiseSVNCache process again Problem is resolved now, thanks BTW: Why that strange behavior when DiAVC expires? Wouldn't a message box that tells the user what is going on be more adequate? Especially if you want to motivate people to buy the full version __________________ Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2nd January 2010, 01:11	#432 \| Link
Disabled Registered User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 211	With all those protections I wonder, what protections will there be on the final version? I hope you don't add stupid things like online activation to it. The date checks are only for the beta versions and will be removed in the final (paid) version I guess? Is the anti debug code gone for good? Anything else we should know?

2nd January 2010, 01:51	#434 \| Link
yesgrey Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,295	I tested it and the results are exactly the same as with the previous beta.

2nd January 2010, 02:16	#435 \| Link
Fadeout Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 150	Latest beta works. The problem with subtitles still there. 1080p clip at L5.1 on a Core 2 Duo E8400. DiAVC beta: User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 18s, fps: 637.4, dfps: 79.7 User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 18s, fps: 604.0, dfps: 80.2 User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 18s, fps: 655.4, dfps: 79.7 CoreAVC2: User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 22s, fps: 770.1, dfps: 63.1 User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 23s, fps: 733.5, dfps: 62.7 User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 22s, fps: 655.4, dfps: 63.1 Same clip, Athlon 64 3500+. DiAVC beta: User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 56s, fps: 532.1, dfps: 25.5 User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 56s, fps: 536.0, dfps: 25.6 User: 2s, kernel: 0s, total: 2s, real: 56s, fps: 530.1, dfps: 25.6 CoreAVC2: User: 64s, kernel: 0s, total: 64s, real: 64s, fps: 22.5, dfps: 22.4 User: 64s, kernel: 0s, total: 64s, real: 64s, fps: 22.4, dfps: 22.3 User: 64s, kernel: 0s, total: 64s, real: 64s, fps: 22.4, dfps: 22.3 The real CPU usage on the Athlon is very similar to CoreAVC, I only had problems making subtitles works since DirectVobSub gets loaded before DiAVC and I only see the first frame of a video and nothing else (time moves but the video is freezed). CoreAVC works and the problem with DiAVC clears if I block DirectVobSub. On the Core 2 Duo subtitles load correctly, but there's the problem with them being delayed in respect to the video/audio.

2nd January 2010, 14:37	#439 \| Link
dZeus Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 33	Will non-SSE2 capable CPUs be supported in future? I'd love to be able to play back higher res/bitrate AVC on my Pentium3-1400S HTPC.