DiAVC decoder, yet another fast H.264 high profile decoder

[Stephen R. Savage]

Using the latest version on your website, I STILL get "DiAVC initialization failed." I am very disappointed that activation has prevented me from purchasing what would otherwise be a very good product.

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by schweinsz

It is not a trial, it is a normal version. The DiAVC is faster than coreavc on almost all cpu by about 10%-25% in favor to new cpu for example, core 2 duo. The DiAVC has a more efficient cabac module so it is faster for high-bitrate contents. If your contents is cavlc, you can wait for DiAVC 1.0.2. I can't guarantee your problem IMHO.

do you have any real statistics to back up this statement? I've tried out your codec on an Athlon 64 4000+ and it's slower than CoreAVC on all content.

Additionally it sounds like this product is far from being ready to be sold as the registration system is buggy, you've got it hardware locked, you basically just told everyone who use cavlc to suck it, it has all kinds of cosmetic problems, you have limited time to do customer support. It seems scary to think of what happens if more than 20 people buy your product.

[Fr4nz]

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

do you have any real statistics to back up this statement? I've tried out your codec on an Athlon 64 4000+ and it's slower than CoreAVC on all content.

Additionally it sounds like this product is far from being ready to be sold as the registration system is buggy, you've got it hardware locked, you basically just told everyone who use cavlc to suck it, it has all kinds of cosmetic problems, you have limited time to do customer support. It seems scary to think of what happens if more than 20 people buy your product.

Luckily we have ffdshow tryouts and DivX 7 HD-decoders for free

[hajj_3]

he hasn't really told ppl with CAVLC to suck it, he said it will be in v1.02, he adds new features within 2 weeks usually so thats not fair to say that. I agree the registration system and website are poor. I am unable to test it as there's no trial so i can't comment on the performance unfortunately, i'd like to test it with 4000 bitrate 720p as already stated. A 10day trial would be good if he could make that happen, then people could really evaluate how good it is compared to coreavc. There are statistics a few pages back btw using older versions of DiAVC, which version did u try chronocross?

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by hajj_3

he hasn't really told ppl with CAVLC to suck it, he said it will be in v1.02, he adds new features within 2 weeks usually so thats not fair to say that. I agree the registration system and website are poor. I am unable to test it as there's no trial so i can't comment on the performance unfortunately, i'd like to test it with 4000 bitrate 720p as already stated. A 10day trial would be good if he could make that happen, then people could really evaluate how good it is compared to coreavc. There are statistics a few pages back btw using older versions of DiAVC, which version did u try chronocross?

Some version from a couple of weeks ago. I don't have it anymore and have no plans on purchasing it because well....it's not a product worth spending money on.

[hajj_3]

right now you're probably right but give it 3 months i'm sure there will be alot more features and have better performance inc hardware de-interlacing, sharpening etc using CUDA. Hopefully there will be a cpu list with speed comparisons with coreavc and diavc in a few months once features are added then we could really compare them and evaluate which to buy. bob0r mentioned a possible buyout a few pages back which would be very cool, guess we'll have to wait and see if that materialises.

[Disabled]

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

do you have any real statistics to back up this statement?

Just read the thread. It was faster for most people. Some beta version was faster for most content I tried on a CoreDuo and a Core2Duo E6400. I didn't try Cavalc, but as he suggested it will be added*). Funny fact: Missing features and crappy sales system with CoreAVC wasn't a problem for you...
You are right though, the sales system is not up to par with CoreAVC ... until they change the account system again.
*edit* *) I actually thought it was already functional but would receive a speed boost, but I might have gotten that wrong as I have no real interest in cavalc.

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by Disabled

Just read the thread. It was faster for most people. Some beta version was faster for most content I tried on a CoreDuo and a Core2Duo E6400. I didn't try Cavalc, but as he suggested it will be added*). Funny fact: Missing features and crappy sales system with CoreAVC wasn't a problem for you...
You are right though, the sales system is not up to par with CoreAVC ... until they change the account system again.
*edit* *) I actually thought it was already functional but would receive a speed boost, but I might have gotten that wrong as I have no real interest in cavalc.

I never had any problems using coreavc or it's registration/activation system. The only problems people had with it were related to the fact they were trying to install it on 400 different machines after purchasing it once rather than problems with singular systems.

As for the speed boosts I could give a rats a** about Core2Duo systems. I already know he spent all his time optimizing for those CPU's, however he claims 25% increase in speed on ALL CPU's whereas this is clearly not the case. His codec is optimized for a very specific subset of CPU's mainly newer core2duo's/quads/i3/i7/i5.

[Fadeout]

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

I never had any problems using coreavc or it's registration/activation system. The only problems people had with it were related to the fact they were trying to install it on 400 different machines after purchasing it once rather than problems with singular systems.

As for the speed boosts I could give a rats a** about Core2Duo systems. I already know he spent all his time optimizing for those CPU's, however he claims 25% increase in speed on ALL CPU's whereas this is clearly not the case. His codec is optimized for a very specific subset of CPU's mainly newer core2duo's/quads/i3/i7/i5.

CoreeAVC is more viable but things should be seen from a different perspective.

I decided to buy DiAVC simply because it is cheap and I wanted to *support* the guy considering how talented he has demonstrated to be. In just a couple of months he outclassed CoreAVC without a problem. There were more measurable performance improvements between each beta version he released week after week than what CoreAVC achieved with 2.0 in almost a full year without updates/fixes.

DiAVC doesn't perform better than CoreAVC with older CPUs, neither CoreAVC 2.0 is performing better than CoreAVC 1.9.5. After a year.

That's why I'm more glad of giving that money to DiAVC than giving it to CoreAVC. CoreAVC was LUCKY that the weight-p support/feature popped up because without it there would be absolutely no reason to upgrade. And that's all that happened in a whole year.

So, DiAVC is very new, updated frequently up to this day, and already outclassing CoreAVC. Where it doesn't outclass it, it is comparable.

The downside is the protection he decided to use on the software, but I still think he deserved my money because alone he demonstrated that he can do a much better work than everyone else. So he already earned my money more than CoreAVC.

[Disabled]

Originally Posted by schweinsz

DiAVC is faster than coreavc on almost all cpu

Originally Posted by schweinsz

Limitations:
Need CPU with SSE2

Core2 and Core from Intel, Athlon64 3500+:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...16#post1358916
I don't know about Atom and Pentium4 and some more AMD (and Via C7,...), what CPU do you have and what were the speeds for you? Or do you also discredit all benchmarks like Betaboy without suggesting a better way how to benchmark codecs?
Also I was also refering to Corecodec changing there "super Coreaccount system" every other release having to reregister and support tickets from the old system not being replied to.

And @Fadeout, I absolutely agree with you, that one should support upcoming developers and I am absolutely amazed at what schweinz achieved in little time. Thats why I bought CoreAVC the moment I could, they looked equally promising (looked...). Still I don't like activation and try to argue against it where I can. I just want to have to control over what I bought and especially when there is only one guy, handing out (re-)activation codes per email. Then I want to reinstall and he is on vacation - perfect.

[yesgrey]

Originally Posted by schweinsz

There is no such code in the filter to generate a password from a register code.

I think it would be a lot better for you if you stop giving hints about your protection scheme. Use whatever you feel necessary for protecting your work, you deserve it.
If someone does not like it, that his problem, not yours.
If someone cracks your protection scheme, then it's your problem, not theirs... so, do yourself a favor, and keep it for yourself.
If someone feels that $10 is too much money to trust you when you say that you will not let them down, why would you have to trust them with an easily crackable protection scheme?

PS: Sorry for the off-topic.

[Disabled]

Originally Posted by yesgrey3

I think it would be a lot better for you if you stop giving hints about your protection scheme.

I don't understand why he has the installation file openly on his webspace. That just increases the number of bad guys that can get it and try to crack it. (And it confuses people into thinking this might be some kind of trial version.) Just hand out a (probably personalized) download link per Email...

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by Disabled

Core2 and Core from Intel, Athlon64 3500+:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...16#post1358916
I don't know about Atom and Pentium4 and some more AMD (and Via C7,...), what CPU do you have and what were the speeds for you? Or do you also discredit all benchmarks like Betaboy without suggesting a better way how to benchmark codecs?
Also I was also refering to Corecodec changing there "super Coreaccount system" every other release having to reregister and support tickets from the old system not being replied to.

And @Fadeout, I absolutely agree with you, that one should support upcoming developers and I am absolutely amazed at what schweinz achieved in little time. Thats why I bought CoreAVC the moment I could, they looked equally promising (looked...). Still I don't like activation and try to argue against it where I can. I just want to have to control over what I bought and especially when there is only one guy, handing out (re-)activation codes per email. Then I want to reinstall and he is on vacation - perfect.

I don't trust those because look at the fps column on the second test. I can't trust any results timecodec is popping out if it's generating one column in which it has decided to put a random number. I measure with my own eyes and what CPU utilization and CPU utilization. My tests indicate that the speed of coreavc is slightly better and performs proper playback all the time.

As for DiAVC's support/purchasing system he'll either have to take the single serial route or you guys are all screwed. He's certainly not going to sell enough of his product to provide a support structure for generating new keys everytime you change a stick of ram.

[Fadeout]

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

I measure with my own eyes and what CPU utilization and CPU utilization.

CPU usage is much better with DiAVC here, same as Timecodec.

In particular it seems to use better both cores.

[Stephen R. Savage]

I'm almost amused. All these CoreCodec shills troll their own thread, accusing anyone who complains about any of their numerous failings of "shitting on the release"... and then they come here and spread FUD! It's almost pathetic that, instead of improving their own work, they come here to attempt to discredit their competitors.

This includes not only the current blog by CHRONO CROSS, but also BETABOY himself trying to spread patent FUD a few pages before this one! Of course, this is not at all surprising, since "CoreCodec" isn't even a real company! They are nothing more than a couple of well-known pirates who hang around and troll IRC channels!

Edit: Also, CAVLC is supported just fine. It just happens to be slightly slower than the competition, which is not a terribly big deal since CAVLC content is incredibly easy to decode.

Edit2: It will also be a great shame if DRM issues betray my enthusiasm. The way things are going, it may come out such that RC1 was the best version.

[Disabled]

AFAIK the "real" time is the wall time, ie how long it took. That number is used to calculate dfps. For whatever reason (idk) timecodec sometimes does not measure the user time (which would probably be more accurate, because it wouldn't measure other programs hogging the cpu or HDD limitings), that value(or the total value derived from User time) is used to calculate the fps, so fps can be severely wrong. My test showed that timecodec dfps shows the same trends as the benchmark in Graphstudio, which showed the same trends as comparing the time taken by a process in the task manager, which showed the same results as comparing the cpu-usage graphs. Trust what you think, but I have yet to see a sound explanation why dfps shouldn't be used for comparison (given you do nothing else and use null renderer).
*edit* And I still wonder what CPU you use...

[schweinsz]

Originally Posted by Disabled

Core2 and Core from Intel, Athlon64 3500+:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...16#post1358916
I don't know about Atom and Pentium4 and some more AMD (and Via C7,...), what CPU do you have and what were the speeds for you? Or do you also discredit all benchmarks like Betaboy without suggesting a better way how to benchmark codecs?

I will give some detailed results on core duo T2350 and core 2 duo T6600 on my site. I have not other cpu so I can't give more detailed results. But there are some results about other cpu in this thread.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...76#post1354676

The core duo I work on is an old cpu with similar architecture to pentium M. I never try to optimize to a special cpu, I just code general algorithm.

[ChronoCross]

Originally Posted by Stephen R. Savage

I'm almost amused. All these CoreCodec shills troll their own thread, accusing anyone who complains about any of their numerous failings of "shitting on the release"... and then they come here and spread FUD! It's almost pathetic that, instead of improving their own work, they come here to attempt to discredit their competitors.

This includes not only the current blog by CHRONO CROSS, but also BETABOY himself trying to spread patent FUD a few pages before this one! Of course, this is not at all surprising, since "CoreCodec" isn't even a real company! They are nothing more than a couple of well-known pirates who hang around and troll IRC channels!

Edit: Also, CAVLC is supported just fine. It just happens to be slightly slower than the competition, which is not a terribly big deal since CAVLC content is incredibly easy to decode.

Edit2: It will also be a great shame if DRM issues betray my enthusiasm. The way things are going, it may come out such that RC1 was the best version.

That's funny coming from a coreavc troll. Guess it's not very fun when your on the other end of the bitching about shortcomings. See how your now calling me a troll for your precious DiAVC. At least coreavc doesn't have you locked into specific hardware, reliably decodes streams, uses proper English in it's configuration dialog, it's fast a all CPU's rather than just being optimized for intel's newer CPU's, supports hardware acceleration, and has actually development plans aside from "I'm going to magically make h264 decoding and encoding 50% faster. I find it funny that your willing to pay the SAME PRICE for something is obviously nowhere near the quality of coreavc.

Also...hate to tell you this but CoreCodec Inc is a registered company...

P.S. This is a forum post not a blog. Just in case you forgot where you were.

Originally Posted by Disabled

AFAIK the "real" time is the wall time, ie how long it took. That number is used to calculate dfps. For whatever reason (idk) timecodec sometimes does not measure the user time (which would probably be more accurate, because it wouldn't measure other programs hogging the cpu or HDD limitings), that value(or the total value derived from User time) is used to calculate the fps, so fps can be severely wrong. My test showed that timecodec dfps shows the same trends as the benchmark in Graphstudio, which showed the same trends as comparing the time taken by a process in the task manager, which showed the same results as comparing the cpu-usage graphs. Trust what you think, but I have yet to see a sound explanation why dfps shouldn't be used for comparison (given you do nothing else and use null renderer).
*edit* And I still wonder what CPU you use...

A program which does not report the correct results all the time is not a reliable metric by which to base any claims.

As for my CPU please read the thread as I stated it about 6 posts ago.

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...&postcount=642

[schweinsz]

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

it's fast a all CPU's rather than just being optimized for intel's newer CPU's, supports hardware acceleration, and has actually development plans aside from "I'm going to magically make h264 decoding and encoding 50% faster. I find it funny that your willing to pay the SAME PRICE for something is obviously nowhere near the quality of coreavc.

A program which does not report the correct results all the time is not a reliable metric by which to base any claims.

corecodec have not qualified engineers in their company actually, so they must hire DS to code for them temporarily. The so-called development plans is a blank paper actually. While I have invented some excellent algorithms and I will implement them in future.
The CoreAVC 2.0 is slower than DiAVC and is comparable to DiVX on my core duo T2350, and much slower than DiAVC on core 2duo T6600.
When multi-threading is used, it is very difficult to measure the actual time the decoder use, but as the time is small that is used by null renderer and splitter, the results gotten by timecodec or graphstudio is very accurate to measure the decoder performance.

[Stephen R. Savage]

Originally Posted by ChronoCross

That's funny coming from a coreavc troll. Guess it's not very fun when your on the other end of the bitching about shortcomings. See how your now calling me a troll for your precious DiAVC.

I believe this is what they refer to as "projecting." See, you are locked into your narrow troll-view notion of the world and feel threatened when others point that out to you. Also, I hate to inform you, but it is well established that CoreCodec is just a front for a couple of notorious scene pirates.

I find it funny that your willing to pay the SAME PRICE for something is obviously nowhere near the quality of coreavc.

Also, nobody mentioned paying anywhere. I think, again, you are projecting to compensate for your own deficiencies. Not only that, I find your inability to grasp the usage of the personal pronoun shocking!

Edit: Also, note that, unlike you who blogs useless garbage, I support DiAVC because I strongly believe that nobody should ever be forced to purchase software from pirates. Personally, I have no real need for DiAVC, and even less for CoreAVC. I only post here because I find the notion of someone who actually writes software instead of blogging about pretending to write software somewhat refreshing.

Edit2: I also find it amusing that you complain about grammatical errors in the software when you have demonstrated in your over 1000 useless posts that basic comprehension of English is beyond your abilities.

Edit3: While we're ranting, I would like to point out that up until release version 1.5, CoreAVC couldn't even decode compliantly. Not only that, until 2.0, the fastest version of CoreAVC was the initial alpha, and in fact every progressive release made it slower.