LAV Filters - DirectShow Media Splitter and Decoders

[nevcairiel]

Originally Posted by Casshern

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:

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.

[chaddawkins]

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?

[STaRGaZeR]

Originally Posted by nevcairiel

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.

[Shark007]

Originally Posted by chaddawkins

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.

[Andy o]

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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?

[chaddawkins]

Originally Posted by Shark007

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.

[aufkrawall]

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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...

[Soukyuu]

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.

[droc]

nevcairiel, how to config LAv filers in J.River Media centre? I don`t see it.

[STaRGaZeR]

Originally Posted by Andy o

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.

Originally Posted by Andy o

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).

[SamuriHL]

Originally Posted by droc

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.

[Andy o]

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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).

[nevcairiel]

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.

[Reino]

Originally Posted by Gaius

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.

[Pat357]

Originally Posted by aufkrawall

Also that whole YCbCr model could be replaced by YCgCo.

What would be the advantages from YCgCo compared to YCbCr ?

[Pat357]

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

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

[aufkrawall]

Originally Posted by Pat357

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?

[Fadeout]

Anyone knows if chapter support has been added to the splitter at some point?

[Gaius]

Originally Posted by Fadeout

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.

[STaRGaZeR]

Originally Posted by Andy o

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.

Originally Posted by Pat357

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.