CoreCodec/H.264 Codec "CoreAVC" [Archive] - Page 121

madshi

14th January 2011, 11:25

Giving out reliable release dates is a major problem for any developer. Just because BetaBoy's release date estimations have proven to be wrong doesn't mean anything. I've given out release estimates and totally was not able to keep them often enough myself. That's just how it is with software development sometimes.

It was rather clear to me right from the start that 2.5 would be a free update. Otherwise they would have opted to name it 3.0. BetaBoy's forum post confirms it. So it's pretty much a sealed deal. Anybody who still thinks 2.5 will cost money for 2.0 users is seriously paranoid, IMHO.

yesgrey

14th January 2011, 16:57

Yes. With a discount, though.
I have to retract myself.

I said this based on the link for shopping it that came with the e-mail they sent me (the one posted by madshi). Now I've realized that the link was for buying the v2.0.0 with a discount due to CES2001, and not for buying the v2.5.

I am very sorry for the confusion.

ChronoCross

14th January 2011, 18:16

So does that mean the v2.5 will not be free? Do you have any proof of that?

You don't have any actual proof that it will be free or will even be released at all.

If you refers to v2.5, actually yes of course :)

You don't have any actual proof it exists aside from a PR release. There are a lot of products from 2011 CES that will never see the light of day. Supposedly 2.1 and 2.2 were ready for release but they disappeared as well. There is nothing to say that they won't just re-number it again to 3.0 due to "new and exciting features"

Giving out reliable release dates is a major problem for any developer. Just because BetaBoy's release date estimations have proven to be wrong doesn't mean anything. I've given out release estimates and totally was not able to keep them often enough myself. That's just how it is with software development sometimes.

It was rather clear to me right from the start that 2.5 would be a free update. Otherwise they would have opted to name it 3.0. BetaBoy's forum post confirms it. So it's pretty much a sealed deal. Anybody who still thinks 2.5 will cost money for 2.0 users is seriously paranoid, IMHO.

Not really. It's not particularly hard to determine a development schedule. Besides okay lets say there are delays.....this product isn't large enough or complex enough to justify the amount of time that has passed since "it's in QC now".

madshi

14th January 2011, 18:32

ajp_anton

14th January 2011, 18:44

madshi

14th January 2011, 19:04

Did I miss something? Was 2.5 renamed to 3.0?

ChronoCross

14th January 2011, 20:07

Well, ChronoCross, I think you're paranoid. And I think most others agree right now that 2.5 is going to be free a free upgrade for 2.0 customers.

How about a bet: If the upgrade to 2.5 costs money, I'll pay the upgrade for you. If not, you will pay the next payable upgrade (probably 3.0) for me. Agreed?

No. I've stated previously I will never buy any CoreCodec product ever again; that includes other people's licenses.

You should clarify that you mean the actual 2.5 release and not what was going to be 2.5 but was renamed to 3.0.

Correct. I guess I could say overall the next released version of CoreAVC will probably cost money or it will never be released because it will get stuck in QC or redesign

Did I miss something? Was 2.5 renamed to 3.0?

Not yet but soon.

madshi

14th January 2011, 21:04

ajp_anton

14th January 2011, 22:30

Did I miss something? Was 2.5 renamed to 3.0?No, but from reading other people's posts here it doesn't seem that unlikely that it will.

ChronoCross

14th January 2011, 22:51

ChronoCross, I'm wondering what you're doing in this thread, if you'll "never buy any CoreCodec product ever again", anyway? What is your motivation of posting here? Just trying to spread fear and doubt?

To keep people informed about how they treat their customer base. I've been around them since the early alpha's and have a followed this thread and posted as such with my opinion varying over time.

Lets just say I started out as an optimist just like some of you are now but time has frayed that into being realistic about both their product and their promises.

madshi

14th January 2011, 23:21

To keep people informed about how they treat their customer base. I've been around them since the early alpha's and have a followed this thread and posted as such with my opinion varying over time.

Lets just say I started out as an optimist just like some of you are now but time has frayed that into being realistic about both their product and their promises.
Okay, how about a deal: If they rename 2.5 to 3.0 and ask for money, then I'll join your pessimistic view. If they do release 2.5 without asking for money, you stop posting in this thread. Sounds fair? :)

ChronoCross

15th January 2011, 00:54

Okay, how about a deal: If they rename 2.5 to 3.0 and ask for money, then I'll join your pessimistic view. If they do release 2.5 without asking for money, you stop posting in this thread. Sounds fair? :)

No :thanks:

Mixer73

15th January 2011, 08:13

No :thanks:

Translation: I'd rather keep whining.

Didn't your mother tell you if you haven't got anything nice to say, say nothing?

Should be a forum rule, IMO. You're not adding anything here, it seems in fact you have no reason at all to post in the thread.

madshi

15th January 2011, 08:22

IMHO ChronoCross' posts are nothing but FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) and should be ignored.

G_M_C

15th January 2011, 09:25

I to like to see an update to CC. But to be honest, these days CC isn't really needed anymore. Modern CPU's have power enough, the time that CC was needed because of its efficiency is past us. And since that was the biggest argument for people to get CC, i think CC has to go rethink their strategy.

Another argument was that CC was more tolerant to streams with non-standard parameters, and thus decoded more streams then another decoder. These days more end more decodes appear, that can also decode such streams. But i still have a stream that causes blocking on most decoders, and CC decodes it fine. So thats my reason to hope to see an update sometime.

All in all; H264 decoding can be done fine, there are plenty decoder that do the job good to very good. Many of them open source or free. I see no reason to whine like Chronocross.

I get his idea that any party should give customer service, but i refuse to accept his point of view that the customer service should last forever, or should target all-and-every wish any customer makes.

When you dont like the service the shop gives you when you buy a TV, or a BD-player, you go somewhere else (next time). The same goes for this; Plenty of alternatives, so go for the alternative, and be done with it.

Disabled

15th January 2011, 12:35

I was a became a "whiner" very early in this thread, and I can tell you, I seriously had to argue against ChronoCross.
Its good to see he finally realized how Core treats their customer.
With 1.x they didn't deliver the promised product for about 3 years, or IMO they never delivered, because 1.x still isn't a h264 high profile decoder which they advertised.
I still hope ChronoCross keeps informing Cores customers about their practices until the next batch of users is pissed at them and he can retire like I did.
I really liked CoreCodec until after they released 1.0 but I didn't see anything impressive since.

ney2x

15th January 2011, 16:01

I think Betaboy will reason out the released of Windows 7 Service Pack 1. Maybe he will tell us to wait more because CoreAVC 2.5 is not compatible with Windows 7 Service Pack 1. QC again, and again and again and again. Just my two cents!

ChronoCross

15th January 2011, 19:37

Translation: I'd rather keep whining.

Didn't your mother tell you if you haven't got anything nice to say, say nothing?

Should be a forum rule, IMO. You're not adding anything here, it seems in fact you have no reason at all to post in the thread.

My contributions to this thread are to warn possible customers to CoreCodec's tactic's. I have every right to post my opinions here, just like you have every right to post a rebuttal.

Besides having a rule that is entirely subjective to each person would mean no one can post ever because there might be one person who thinks your post are irrelevant regardless of whether they are or not.

IMHO ChronoCross' posts are nothing but FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) and should be ignored.

lol. You mean your NSHO.

I was a became a "whiner" very early in this thread, and I can tell you, I seriously had to argue against ChronoCross.
Its good to see he finally realized how Core treats their customer.
With 1.x they didn't deliver the promised product for about 3 years, or IMO they never delivered, because 1.x still isn't a h264 high profile decoder which they advertised.
I still hope ChronoCross keeps informing Cores customers about their practices until the next batch of users is pissed at them and he can retire like I did.
I really liked CoreCodec until after they released 1.0 but I didn't see anything impressive since.

Agreed. They are very good at pretending that they are accomplishing a lot but it always ends in disappointment for their customers.

I used to a be a huge supporter but then they basically just took a dump on me after I had defended them on this forum for years. Seriously if any of you new people to this thread go back and read the entire thread you will see what we are talking about.

Audionut

17th January 2011, 09:20

They are very good at pretending that they are accomplishing a lot but it always ends in disappointment for their customers.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1433805#post1433805

I think the posts saying anything from core is going to be released is more OT than ChronoCross posts.

Forfront

26th January 2011, 18:37

My contributions to this thread are to warn possible customers to CoreCodec's tactic's.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1433805#post1433805

I think the posts saying anything from core is going to be released is more OT than ChronoCross posts.

U guys are right:eek:, I spoke up for the customers on coreAVC forum and got BANNED:(!!!

Is there no other group codec developers that have the vision to use GPGPU i.e. CUDA, AMD app &/or dxva2 for decoding with post-processing. Are they really the only ones, how could this have happened:confused:!?!?

ChronoCross

27th January 2011, 01:26

U guys are right:eek:, I spoke up for the customers on coreAVC forum and got BANNED:(!!!

Is there no other group codec developers that have the vision to use GPGPU i.e. CUDA, AMD app &/or dxva2 for decoding with post-processing. Are they really the only ones, how could this have happened:confused:!?!?

Lol what did you say? I see the thread but it seems Betaboy deleted whatever you posted.

Forfront

27th January 2011, 02:58

Lol what did you say?

BetaBoy lets be “real” here, how long to do u guys think u can just keep stringing ur customers along before someone starts asking hard questions & demanding answers?!?! Seriously I’ve been waiting for Radeon support for around three Years now ಠ_ಠ!!! I would have been content if u would simple said “u know what Forfront we don’t know when it’s going to be finished”

The above statement got me banned! I guess I better PM murdomac’ and explain what happened.

Does BetaBoy have the power to band me here too:(??

ChronoCross

27th January 2011, 04:14

The above statement got me banned! I guess I better PM murdomac’ and explain what happened.

Does BetaBoy have the power to band me here too:(??

Luckily he has no mod abilities here.

But yeah what you posted is pretty much the complaint of tons of their clients. Promises, promises, promises and then nothing. Asking for a release date will either get a non answer or an answer that ends up falling through.

I wouldn't worry too much about being banned on their "community" though. Just speak with your wallet and don't buy into their bullshit anymore.

Forfront

27th January 2011, 21:09

Luckily he has no mod abilities here.Haha’ that good to know!;)

The sad thing is that as of 2011 coreAVC still has no direct competition in terms of GPGPU that allows for post-processing/filter through ffdshow. From henceforth I will began trying to garnish support from other engineers to start moving in this direction, I would gladly pay for an alternative!.......

It’s time for Change!!!

Sharktooth

27th January 2011, 21:52

27th January 2011, 23:31

what are you talking about? ffdshow tryouts has GPU decoding and post-processing/filtering. VLC and MPC-HC (and its directshow decoders) too... on both nvidia and ati cards. some other brands are supported too.

He's talking about software filtering. IIRC, that was possible with ffdshow's DXVA2 implementation at some point of development, but wasn't it disabled because of problems with transferring the decoded video to main memory fast enough?

hajj_3

28th January 2011, 02:12

i joked months ago that when he said it would be out in a few weeks that it would probably be out by christmas, christmas went a long time ago now. It seems that DiAVC development has pretty much stopped as i think neuron and the creator are selling software to netflix or something. Wonder if a new version will be out in 2011.

Sharktooth

28th January 2011, 03:33

@nm: probably yes. but MPC-HC has filtering (denoising, deinterlacing, sharpening, chroma upsampling... etc.) thru shaders.

Forfront

28th January 2011, 19:35

He's talking about software filtering. IIRC, that was possible with ffdshow's DXVA2 implementation at some point of development, but wasn't it disabled because of problems with transferring the decoded video to main memory fast enough?Correct:)... but I’m particularly speaking of CUDA & AMD APP which will allow for faster copying to the main memory.
what are you talking about?Perhaps Professor Owens can explain this better than I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW2Q7fwz8hA

CoreAVC has already made this possible v2.0 with CUDA, it’s about using the GPU for video decoding which completely free's up CPU for post-processing i.e. ffdshow AviSynth - raw video - all supported. This gives the user nearly infinite possibilities in terms of what they can do with the raw video stream.
It seems that DiAVC development has pretty much stopped as i think neuron and the creator are selling software to netflix or something
Yes... if they are still developing DiAVC it would be a good prospect for the future;)...

Sharktooth

4th February 2011, 03:02

as i said, ffdshow and MPC-HC have GPU decoding. it doesnt work thru CUDA but DXVA. the result is the same.

Virtual_ManPL

5th February 2011, 09:14

Also DxVA is "better" because it's not limited to use only definite GPU memory.
In my case it can use all 256MB in DxVA mode and only 239MB in CUDA or OpenCL mode.
Some HD files with high ReFrames and bitrate can't be played properly in CUDA probably because of lacked memory.

madshi

5th February 2011, 10:11

I doubt it's a memory size problem. The problem is more likely that CUDA decodes to GPU RAM, but CoreAVC needs the frames to be in system RAM, so basically every decoded frame has to be copied from GPU RAM to system RAM, then later the video renderer will do the reverse (system RAM -> GPU RAM). With DXVA the frames are decoded to GPU RAM and stay there, which is better for performance, but it means you can't access/process the video data via CPU.

Forfront

6th February 2011, 02:34

as i said, ffdshow and MPC-HC have GPU decoding. it doesnt work thru CUDA but DXVA. the result is the same. ok then please explain to me how to use DXVA for decoding and ffdshow for flitering in unison??:)

Virtual_ManPL

6th February 2011, 10:37

I doubt it's a memory size problem

I strongly believe that it is a memory size problem, but I could be wrong.
Based on my tests when I use Firefox 4 with HW Acc, which also uses GPU memory, playing some HD files which I can play before is impossible. because memory is nearly all eaten by both player and Fx (based on NVIDIA Inspector 1.9.4.4)

ok then please explain to me how to use DXVA for decoding and ffdshow for flitering in unison??:)

Why would you use ffdshow ?
You can use Shaders in DxVA mode. Works the same.

6th February 2011, 10:58

Why would you use ffdshow ?
You can use Shaders in DxVA mode. Works the same.

Not all software filters have equivalent shader implementations. And the output can only be used for playback purposes.

Sharktooth

7th February 2011, 02:21

common filters needed by the majority of users can be done in shaders. for example MPC-HC comes with denoising, deinterlacing, sharpening, PC<->TV colo-range conversion, bt.601 -> bt.709 conversion and others. plus there is a thread in the software player forums with new filters not yet included in MPC-HC.

Forfront

7th February 2011, 22:55

common filters needed by the majority of users.

Haha’ that child's play!!! u are way off target my friend, completely apple and oranges;).

Sharktooth

8th February 2011, 04:13

i dont care if this is coreavc thread. i've just given my opinion and as i said, there are other free decoders and apps that are able to use GPUs for decoding and filtering.
yes, it's only for playback but you didnt specify the context.

Virtual_ManPL

8th February 2011, 14:32

Exactly,
sharpen and color filters is all you should need for video in HD...

If it's not in HD, you can simply use software decoding with external postprocessing from ffdshow etc.

Forfront

8th February 2011, 19:26

i dont care if this is coreavc thread.Wow:eek: u must be angery to say that, if u don’t care, then I don’t care;) i've just given my opinionThe method I described on p.302 has nothing to do with MPC-HC specifically, it would work with any player that support external filteringand as i said, there are other free decoders and apps that are able to use GPUs for decoding and filtering.Name one decoder that supports openCL??yes, it's only for playback but you didnt specify the context.The context, it would take week for me to explain it to u:p. So let just say the purpose is hardware decoding of HD content (why? to take the load off the CPU) & software filtering with AviSynth (scriping for stream manipulation). I already stated this on the other page, I don’t see whats so hard to understand.

Sharktooth

8th February 2011, 19:49

i give up...

STaRGaZeR

8th February 2011, 20:05

i give up...

Thank god.

Sharktooth

9th February 2011, 00:55

those are the stupid posts that make me NOT WANT to give up. ok, mister "i know it all", now, explain what's the difference in using MPC-HC dxva, ffdshow dxva or coreavc for playback. filtering comes with the player with shaders...
from my point of view, free alternatives are much better than coreavc... since they're free and the result is the same.

Astrophizz

9th February 2011, 03:20

Forfront was just trolling :P
Wow:eek: u must be angery to say that, if u don’t care, then I don’t care;)
Translates to: "u mad?" at which point it's best to just ignore anything he says.

Forfront

9th February 2011, 06:53

@Sharktooth seriously Astrophizz is right, its time just drop all of this! Obviously u don’t use coreAVC 2.0 with CUDA so there noway u could understand my comments.
__________________________________

Just to get things back OT.
Considering that it’s now Feb. and there’s still no news from the guys over at coreAVC about a release, I wonder if it’s because they weren’t able to get the decoded frames copied back into the main memory fast enough through DXVA API. If that's correct, then I think they may skip the v2.5 release, and focus there attention on openCL for ATI users. That would be a major enhancement, v3.0 worthy:D...

STaRGaZeR

9th February 2011, 10:16

me NOT WANT to give up

I knew it was too good to be true :(

Sharktooth

9th February 2011, 14:32

@Forefront: as if USING means understanding... coreavc is using the decoder on the videocard. it just does it thru cuda that is slower than directly using it thru DXVA. so, what is your point? it's not a full h.264 decoder implemented in CUDA. it's not even possible... again, what's your point?
if you're trying to be a troll, then you made it.