Simple x264/x265 Launcher v3.02 (2022-06-16)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

So, obviously, the detection code is working fine. Must be some oddity with DirectShowSource() or the particular DirectShow decoder filter.

[EDIT]

Works fine for me with your clip, using FFVideoSource:

Simple x264 Launcher (Build #808), built 2014-02-26

Job started at 2014-02-28, 21:19:25.

Source file : C:\Temp\Dwm 2014-02-28 20-14-23-60.avs
Output file : C:\Temp\Dwm 2014-02-28 20-14-23-60.hevc

--- SYSTEMINFO ---

Binary Path : E:\DeLpHi\x264_x64_launcher\bin\Release
Avisynth    : Yes
VapourSynth : D:\VapourSynth\core32

--- SETTINGS ---

Encoder : x265 (H.265/HEVC), x64, 8-Bit
Source  : Avisynth (avs)
RC Mode : CRF
Preset  : Superfast
Tuning  : None
Profile : Auto
Custom  : (None)

--- CHECK VERSION ---

Detect video encoder version:

Creating process:
E:\DeLpHi\x264_x64_launcher\bin\Release\toolset\x64\x265_8bit_x64.exe --version

x265 [info]: HEVC encoder version 0.7+232-fec3cab870437c10
x265 [info]: build info [Windows][GCC 4.8.2][64 bit] 8bpp
x265 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64 SlowShuffle

Detect video source version:

Creating process:
E:\DeLpHi\x264_x64_launcher\bin\Release\toolset\x86\avs2yuv_x86.exe

Avs2YUV 0.24bm2

> x265 version: 0.7+232
> Avs2YUV version: 0.24.2

--- GET SOURCE INFO ---

Creating process:
E:\DeLpHi\x264_x64_launcher\bin\Release\toolset\x86\avs2yuv_x86.exe -frames 1 C:\Temp\dwm201~1.avs NUL

C:\Temp\dwm201~1.avs: 2048x1152, 30030/1001 fps, 1362 frames

Resolution: 2048x1152
Frame Rate: 30030/1001
No. Frames: 1362

--- ENCODING VIDEO ---

Creating input process:
E:\DeLpHi\x264_x64_launcher\bin\Release\toolset\x86\avs2yuv_x86.exe C:\Temp\dwm201~1.avs -

Creating encoder process:
E:\DeLpHi\x264_x64_launcher\bin\Release\toolset\x64\x265_8bit_x64.exe --crf 22.0 --preset superfast --output "C:\Temp\Dwm 2014-02-28 20-14-23-60.hevc" --frames 1362 --y4m -

y4m [info]: 2048x1152 30030/1001 fps i420, frames 0 - 1361 of 0
x265 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64 SlowShuffle
x265 [info]: HEVC encoder version 0.7+232-fec3cab870437c10
x265 [info]: build info [Windows][GCC 4.8.2][64 bit] 8bpp
x265 [info]: Main profile, Level-5 (Main tier)
x265 [info]: WPP streams / pool / frames : 36 / 4 / 2
x265 [info]: CU size : 32
x265 [info]: Max RQT depth inter / intra : 1 / 1
x265 [info]: ME / range / subpel / merge : hex / 44 / 1 / 2
x265 [info]: Keyframe min / max / scenecut : 25 / 250 / 40
x265 [info]: Lookahead / bframes / badapt : 10 / 4 / 0
x265 [info]: b-pyramid / weightp / refs : 1 / 0 / 1
x265 [info]: Rate Control / AQ-Strength / CUTree : CRF-22.0 / 0.0 / 0
x265 [info]: tools: cfm esd rd=3 lft sao-lcu sign-hide

[Atak_Snajpera]

My chain looks like this Haali + ffdshow (libavcodec for avc)

[Atak_Snajpera]

Problem was solved after re-boot. Weird...
Sorry Lord_Mulder for raising false alarm

[Bozotheclown]

Welcome everyone,

Very nice and useful app for x264 stuff.

few questions:

1. It's possible to add new button labeled as "SAVE" for saving modified parameters in existing template?

2. Add option for edit existing "Job".

3. If m2ts container officially supported as input? There is no such ext on "all supported files" in "Open Source File" window. But program accepted this kind of file.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by Bozotheclown

1. It's possible to add new button labeled as "SAVE" for saving modified parameters in existing template?

Possible? Yes. Will it be added? Maybe

Originally Posted by Bozotheclown

2. Add option for edit existing "Job".

Well, at least when the job is not started yet, this should be possible. But requires extra work.

Originally Posted by Bozotheclown

3. If m2ts container officially supported as input? There is no such ext on "all supported files" in "Open Source File" window. But program accepted this kind of file.

Simple x264 Launcher is just a front-end to x264/x265. So what works (or does not work) solely depends on the encoder! If you use a x264 build with FFM2-support enabled (as is the case with the included builds), it can read almost everything thanks to FFMS2/libav. However, as far as I remember, TS/M2TS is known to be a particular problematic format for FFMS2. As for x265, all it can read is "raw" YUV4MPEG at the moment, nothing else.

Of course you can always load your M2TS file via Avisynth or VapurSynth, for both x264 and x265. I recommend DGDecodeNV.

[VideoFanatic]

I was using an old version of Simple x264 Launcher that I was quite happy with. I got fed up with the "this version is more than 6 months old" message every time I started the program so I downloaded the latest version.

I thought the program was supposed to be portable, it just extracts the files to a folder? However there's an entry in the Programs and Features section in Windows which suggests it installed the program.

Also, when installing the program there was a popup saying it was out of date so I clicked the button to update it, it appears to be updating mplayer. The top of the window says "download complete, verifying signature".

The progress window says "Failed to verify signature" at the bottom and the install has paused. The only button available to click is the cancel button.

Not very happy. What's going on?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

I thought the program was supposed to be portable, it just extracts the files to a folder? However there's an entry in the Programs and Features section in Windows which suggests it installed the program.

Correct, the program is 100% portable - in the sense that it does not require any additional "runtime libraries", "frameworks" or "codecs" to be installed on the system. It's 100% self-contained.

You can even rename the program file to x264_launcher_portable.exe in order to enable a "real" portable mode, in which case the program will keep all it's INI files directly in the program directory.

Though using the "real" portable mode is only recommended if you want to carry around the program on your USB stick. Otherwise, I highly recommend to keep the INI files at %LOCALAPPDATA%.


As far as the installer is concerned, it doesn't do anything but extracting the program files to the selected directory (just like an SFX archive) and create the shortcuts to the program.

In newer versions we also have a proper uninstaller now, because a lot of people asked for it. They don't believe that deleting the installation directory plus the (now defunct) shortcuts can be sufficient.

But that's pretty much what the uninstaller does. So it's just a convenience feature. And of course the uninstaller will show up under "Programs and Features", so people can find it

(Note: The paranoid user, who believes that the installer program does some evil things - which of course it doesn't - may still extract the program files with 7-Zip and bypass the installer altogether)

Originally Posted by holygamer

Also, when installing the program there was a popup saying it was out of date so I clicked the button to update it, it appears to be updating mplayer.

What makes you believe the Simple x264 Launcher Auto-Updater was downloading "mplayer" updates?

Well, one of our update servers is located at "mplayer.savedonthe.net" and maybe you got confused by that. But let me assure you that not only MPlayer updates are hosted there

Originally Posted by holygamer

The top of the window says "download complete, verifying signature".

The progress window says "Failed to verify signature" at the bottom and the install has paused. The only button available to click is the cancel button.

Of course all updates I distribute have a PGP signature attached, so potential attackers cannot slip in "malicious" files. And my Auto-Update utilities won't install any updates, unless they have verified the signature

If you get "Failed to verify signature", it means the signature verification has failed for some reason. Probably it's just a failed/corrupted download. Though, this could also mean that you have just been protected from an attack!

In any case, it should be obvious that the update installer won't go on after the signature check has failed, so simply try again! And if the update fails multiple times, I will need to have a closer look...

[VideoFanatic]

OK thanks. Why after uninstalling does it say I need to reboot if it's merely just deleted the files since the program is portable?

What's the point of the signature thing? If it didn't need a signature then it would have downloaded fine?

I have now renamed the installation file to: x264_launcher_portable.exe but when I open the file it's still asking me to install it?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

OK thanks. Why after uninstalling does it say I need to reboot if it's merely just deleted the files since the program is portable?

NSIS decides by itself when it needs to reboot.

If it requests a reboot, that probably means one of the files that were supposed to be deleted was locked at the time the uninstaller was run.

Originally Posted by holygamer

What's the point of the signature thing?

Digital signatures make sure that the files you are downloading are genuine, i.e. they have been created by me and have not been modified since then.

Thus it prevents that:

• The download can be modified while it's traveling trough the Internet from the update server to your computer - which otherwise would easily be possible.
• If somebody manages to break into one of my update mirrors, he can modify the files unnoticed, e.g. replace the original files with "malicious" ones.
• If one of my update mirrors is no longer under my control, e.g. because the domain name now belongs to somebody else, the new owner can start distributing "malicious" files.
• I will still be able to distribute any updates, if I ever loose my private signing key

Recommended reading:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

Originally Posted by holygamer

If it didn't need a signature then it would have downloaded fine?

Nope. Without the signature, the Auto-Updater simply would have no way to know whether the file it just downloaded is genuine or malicious.

In other words: Without the signatures, the Auto-Update process would be inherently insecure!

Originally Posted by holygamer

I have now renamed the installation file to: x264_launcher_portable.exe but when I open the file it's still asking me to install it?

Did you rename the installer or the program? Renaming the installer has no effect at all!

Renaming the program itself has exactly one effect: The program will now keep all of it's INI files in the same directory where the EXE file is located. And this is usually not recommended.

(As said before: The "real" portable mode is only recommended if you want to carry around the program on your USB stick, but not for normal "local" usage)

[r0lZ]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

The program will now keep all of it's INI files in the same directory where the EXE file is located. And this is usually not recommended.

May I ask why it's not recommended? I install many programs in portable mode whenever possible on my D: HDD, because that way I don't need to re-install them if I need to format my system disc and re-install Windows. I find that technique very convenient, or at least much more convenient than installing the programs in the default location "C:\Program Files". So, if for any reason, that technique could have a drawback or be insecure, please let me know.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

May I ask why it's not recommended? I install many programs in portable mode whenever possible on my D: HDD, because that way I don't need to re-install them if I need to format my system disc and re-install Windows. I find that technique very convenient, or at least much more convenient than installing the programs in the default location "C:\Program Files". So, if for any reason, that technique could have a drawback or be insecure, please let me know.

Because on modern multi-user operating systems the proper place to store user-specific configuration files is %APPDATA% or %LOCALAPPDATA% (equivalent to "/home/user_name" on POSIX systems). This way each user can have its own configuration without interfering with other user's configuration. But most important, any user is guaranteed to have write-access to these user-specific directories, which is not the case for %PROGRAMFILES% (equivalent to "/usr/bin" on POSIX systems). And that is for a good reason! Now you could of course install the program to some directory where all users have write access to workaround the issue. But that obviously undermines the operating system's security mechanisms.

BTW: In practice it may actually work to store configuration files in %PROGRAMFILES%, even if the program is not run with "elevated" (root) privileges. That's because Windows provides backward-compatibility mechanisms for legacy applications. It will automatically redirect any attempt to create files in "%PROGRAMFILES%" to "%LOCALAPPDATA%\VirtualStore". But of course new software should not depend on such backward-compatibility mechanisms. This is 2014, not 1994

[r0lZ]

OK, I did know that. My PC us used only by me, and I store my portable apps on D:\, because I have no access right limitation. So, everything is fine in my case, but I agree that your multi-users argument is important. Thanks for the clarification.

[VideoFanatic]

I tried unzipping the exe installation file but all I got was a folder called: $PLUGINSDIR and another identical folder inside that. Then inside that folder were these files:
StdUtils.dll
x264_x64-SETUP-r754.exe

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

I tried unzipping the exe installation file but all I got was a folder called: $PLUGINSDIR and another identical folder inside that. Then inside that folder were these files:
StdUtils.dll
x264_x64-SETUP-r754.exe

Keep the file "x264_x64-SETUP-r754.exe" and try unzipping that one the same way you did before

[VideoFanatic]

Then I get these files but no .exe file to launch the program - checked all the folders:

• $_OUTDIR
• $COMMONFILES
• $PLUGINSDIR
• imageformats
• $R0
• Copying.txt
• History.txt
• History-x264.txt
• License.txt
• License-Qt4.txt
• msvcp120.dll
• msvcr120.dll
• QtCore4.dll
• QtGui4.dll
• QtSvg4.dll
• QtXml4.dll
• ReadMe.txt

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

Then I get these files but no .exe file to launch the program - checked all the folders:

• $_OUTDIR
• $COMMONFILES
• $PLUGINSDIR
• imageformats
• $R0
• Copying.txt
• History.txt
• History-x264.txt
• License.txt
• License-Qt4.txt
• msvcp120.dll
• msvcr120.dll
• QtCore4.dll
• QtGui4.dll
• QtSvg4.dll
• QtXml4.dll
• ReadMe.txt

Looks like 7-Zip - or whatever tool you used to extract the installer - didn't get all the file names right.

Try renaming the file "$R0" to "x264_launcher.exe". And the "$_OUTDIR" probably is supposed to be "toolset". Not sure what $COMMONFILES refers to.

Of course there is a much easier solution: Just run the darn installer

[VideoFanatic]

I was wondering what profile should I use to give the highest compression without lowering the picture quality? I'm converting 1080i 25fps TV recordings to 720p 59.94fps. The source was Main @ L4.0. At the moment Simple x264 Launcher automatically uses High @ L3.2.

[szabi]

Few month ago, I had a problem with multithread avisynth by qtgmc.
But now, I tried it again and I can say this issue is gone.
It run for 6 hours without problem.
Thanks for your job.

bye
szabi

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

I was wondering what profile should I use to give the highest compression without lowering the picture quality? I'm converting 1080i 25fps TV recordings to 720p 59.94fps. The source was Main @ L4.0. At the moment Simple x264 Launcher automatically uses High @ L3.2.

Simple x264 Launcher does not set the Profile nor the Level, unless you explicitly request a specific Profile or Level.

The default behavior of x264 is to set the proper Profile and Level automatically for you, i.e. the lowest possible Profile/Level that your stream conforms to. And almost always there is no need to set the Profile or Level manually.

To make it clear again: The Profile and Level are just labels that indicate the minimum decoder capabilities that are required to play your stream. For example, a "High" Profile stream will require a decoder with support for "High" Profile.

(Enforcing an even lower Profile or Level than x264 would set by default can make sense, e.g. in case you need to hit a lower Profile/Level for compatibility reasons. Enforcing a higher Profile/Level makes no sense to me)

Originally Posted by szabi

Few month ago, I had a problem with multithread avisynth by qtgmc.
But now, I tried it again and I can say this issue is gone.
It run for 6 hours without problem.
Thanks for your job.

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure neither the problem nor the solution was caused by Simple x264 Launcher

[VideoFanatic]

Seems to be a bug. I selected High444 profile then after the encoding was finished I muxed the file and mediainfo says the profile is High@L3.2.