CoreCodec/H.264 Codec "CoreAVC" [Archive] - Page 39

foxyshadis

9th November 2006, 09:34

I feel very sorry for Core. I initially bought the pro version to support the devs and because GPU accel would be great, but I would never have done so if i knew how CoreAVC would evolve. I'm pretty sure you could be sued over here in germany for advertising features you do not deliver and for incorporating constraints I did not know before I bought it in a software that still not does what it was supposed to do as I bought the software.
This is what I bought:
Baseline Profile Support, Main Profile Support, High Profile Support, Interlaced (PAFF), Interlaced (MBAFF), SMP (multi-processor) Support, GPU (video card) Acceleration Support
Where does it say stupid activation process? Nowhere! And I don't call the activation a feature that would fall under the "features subject to change" line.

This is not true. You should not make veiled threats of lawsuits over incorrect interpretations. You bought CoreAVC 1.0 (or 1.1), with the features it had at the time, you did not buy 1.2 or 1.3, nor guarantees of versions of timeframes for inclusion. You bought the product as it existed when you bought it, along with promises of GPU support at "a later date" and sometimes "soon" - no definite date, and the feature has not yet been dropped so the promise of eventual support hasn't been broken.

As an aside to the fact that you bought 1.0 (or 1.1), you have every right not to upgrade to 1.2, with its activation, if you have moral objections, though it's been provided freely. At no time has Core ever attempted to hide the presence of activation in 1.2 - I remember it being discussed right after 1.0 was released, or even before - but you're trying to slimily imply that the product both cannot change (with regards to activation) and must change (with regards to GPU), both because you bought a prior version. Doesn't work that way.

I will say, though, that I think Core needs a special symbol on their feature chart making clear that it's a future feature, instead of just a footnote.

clsid

9th November 2006, 12:37

I think it should be removed from the feature chart completely. The only place where it belongs is on a roadmap. Only when a feature is actually available it should be on a feature chart.

BetaBoy

9th November 2006, 13:14

Thx for the feedback.. Our new site which we are launching with the CoreAVC 1.2 removes it from the chart but adds it under as a future addition.

madshi

9th November 2006, 13:55

Just want to say that I find it positive that there's a new build of CoreAVC out soon, even if GPU acceleration is not yet included. It's better to release all the fixes/minor improvements that are already implemented in the code base rather than releasing nothing at all. The only alternative would have been to delay the next CoreAVC version until GPU acceleration is done, which could be a few more months. I think most of the frustrated comments in this thread are not because there's a new build out very soon, but because it's generally taking so long for the GPU acceleration to arrive.

So please, CoreAVC/BetaBoy, don't be discouraged and keep on releasing minor new builds, if they are ready. That's welcome. Of course faster general development would be even more welcome, but that really has nothing to do with the next minor build.

Just my 2 cents...

oddball

9th November 2006, 17:21

The reason I personally want GPU support is because I have a AMD 3200 XP CPU with an AGP 7600GT which will not make use of GPU in Purevideo because Nvidia in it's infinite wisdom decided not to include it on Non-SSE2 processors. The people like me with less powerful CPU's are the people that actually need the GPU boost the most! I was hoping that in combination with CoreAVC's already fast decoding that with GPU support as well it would allow me to playback those H.264 AVC clips that have all the options set to 'On'. Currently I cannot playback H.264 at full speed if it is encoded with all the options on as my CPU is not powerful enough.

What would be cheaper? $10-20 for a software solution or $1000 for an all new wizbang hardware upgrade?

I was pinning my hopes on the former but it looks like it's slipping further and further into vaporware. Even if it is added in a future build of CoreAVC BetaBoy says he cannot comment whether it will indeed work on Non-SSE2 CPU's. It would still be a case of suck it and see. :(

crypto

9th November 2006, 17:34

Everybody can decide to buy it or to leave it. No reason to get angry. I personally think an activation scheme for a codec is a total overkill and a reason not to use it. Too bad, because coreavc is/was really a good codec now joining the drm, encryption, protection madness the industry is trying to establish.

CruNcher

9th November 2006, 22:34

crypto the industry is forcing them todo if you wana play buisness you have to follow the rules this is how it goes, and (IP) protection is one of these, for the ultimate growth (and the ferrari in the backyard) ;)

Rectal Prolapse

9th November 2006, 23:34

I figured out why my post count "changed" - I log in from two different computers and apparently I have two accounts. Oops! Fixed now.

Anyways - GPU support doesn't bother me too much, because I have a fast PC. I was never expecting GPU support because I bought CoreAVC the day it came out and I don't think it was mentioned on the website if I remember correctly.

So, if GPU support does make it, I would assume it is optional - given the number of bugs in video drivers these days, it would be nice to have something to fall back on when NVIDIA/ATI screw it up. :)

Disabled

9th November 2006, 23:39

This is not true.
...

I'm no lawyer, so youre right, I might be wrong. But I'm pretty sure, that the (our) law protects me from companys proposing a million features to be included in a later release and not including them "in time". Core can say in 20 Years, they will include it in a later release. Untill today GPU accel is a feature I bought as stated on their site.

And for the activation, over here you can't just put copy protections on a cd without telling anyone. Over here you have the right to know what you buy, before you get your product. I still did not get the product I bought, but get restrictions I never wanted. I'm no lawyer and don't think this has ever been gone though the courts, but I think I would have a fair chance going out on top.

Don't get me wrong. I would never file a lawsuit to corecodec. I still think core has a good product there. But I still think that I have the right to get GPU support without activation. You can include the activation and whatever you want in 1.4 (if 1.3 has GPU), as I got my paid product then.
If they made CoreAVC open source, I would have donated at least as much as I paid for the pro version, and If they now would go closed source with activation and shit, well, then I could not do anything and it would be my personal problem. But as a paying customer I have more rights than a begging downloader.

woah!

10th November 2006, 02:52

it is close to a "bait and switch" offer to be honest. they promise something to you to sell a lower product to you first.

i believe core will eventually make a gpu enhanced version, but in all honesty they shouldn't be touting it on this forum so early and not expect some people to jump on them after 2 revisions have been released since that time and still nothing about gpu.

like i said i dont care myself...

lazyn00b

10th November 2006, 10:17

OK BetaBoy et al., I don't care about the activation, and I don't mind the lack of GPU support (for now).

What I want to know is why have I (and other MCE users I presume) been waiting for half a year for a working decoder?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=839424#post839424

Check out the date on that post - it's from June! I bought CoreAVC virtually on the day it was released, and there still hasn't been a fix for the stability issues on MCE 2005. Telling me "it's fixed in the codebase" or something like that isn't going to make me happy. The CoreAVC website isn't even responding right now, which doesn't inspire much confidence.

All this big talk about big plans for the future - CoreASP, -MP3, -AC3, GPU support, etc, doesn't impress me much when you can't even release a fix for the one product you've actually sold. It makes me wonder if you guys are serious about building a business or if you're just hoping to get hired by somebody like Nero before you get kicked out of your mom's basement ;)

In case you haven't noticed, folks on Doom9 tend to be EXTREME tightwads who are RARELY persuaded to part with their money, especially when so much high quality Free/Open Source software exists for their needs. The only reason so many people (like me) jumped on the CoreAVC bandwagon was because of the insane performance - in that respect, CoreAVC certainly delivered. Speed isn't everything however; stability and support matter, too!

You guys got my money once, but if you want it again you're going to have to get serious about supporting your product.

fenomeno83

10th November 2006, 11:38

when will be release coreavc 1.2?

BetaBoy

10th November 2006, 12:05

We are closer now (thx Jarod for pointing out the .ts issue) and have just integrated our digital signing into the package... Now that is done all that is left is to QA delivery/install and then release it.

AmbKosh

10th November 2006, 12:16

So what is you suggested rate for the refresh button in my browser? minutes, hours or still days? ;) Anyway I cannot wait to try the CoreAVC 1.2 for my media PC.

Romario

10th November 2006, 17:55

Well, I hope that BetaBoy will manage to resolve any bug in CoreAVC 1.2 in time for final release.

BTW, I still expect 64-bit version of CoreAVC 1.2 for xp64 and Vista64!!!

Malow

10th November 2006, 19:39

working with x264 interlaced is all i wish :D (with directshow deinterlace)

bob0r

10th November 2006, 19:51

Malow, i had BBC.HD.Robin.Hood.S01E03.H.264.1080MBAFF.AC3.5.1-BBC.sample.ts tested, and BetaBoy said CoreAVC did its job, and i specificly asked for directshow deinterlacing.

So if its not properly working, we know who to stare at for a long time :sly:

Jay Bee

10th November 2006, 20:18

Does BBC use x264? :D

And where can I get this file?

oddball

11th November 2006, 01:12

Does BBC use x264? :D

And where can I get this file?

LOL. No it uses the less efficient H.264 AVC method. Very hard to decode too without a fast PC I may add (Sulks).

Eeknay

11th November 2006, 02:28

So was the black level issue in PAFF streams fixed in the end? Didn't really get a firm answer on that.

11th November 2006, 02:50

Some info about currently avaible GPU accel:
Nero Showtime, even with GPU Accel, slower than CoreAVC;
PowerDVD7 with GPU accel faster than CoreAVC, but sometimes produces lower quality picture, because picture deblocking in that mode is off (no time to test PowerDVD7 GPU A vs. CoreAVC deblock off......)
I don't tested WinDVD8 yet, but for now I got bad feelings about GPU accel in that program.....

JohnnyFu

11th November 2006, 03:10

What indicates the deblocking status in PowerDVD7 ?

CruNcher

11th November 2006, 03:22

@JohnnyFU

you won't see any deblocking take place, you could say Cyberlink is cheating ;)
but everyone have to keep also in mind that it's Decoder was entirely optimized for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray playback

11th November 2006, 18:55

What indicates the deblocking status in PowerDVD7 ?
Quality of picture, of course :)

fenomeno83

11th November 2006, 20:12

try new intervideo windvd 8!tomorrow I will test it!!

Jay Bee

12th November 2006, 20:28

What indicates the deblocking status in PowerDVD7 ?

http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/23/1_003.png
http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/23/2_000.png

So can anyone confirm that Nvidia AVC decoding actually never does deblocking and it's not just some bug with my 6600 GT AGP card? I had been thinking that it's just me because I hadn't seen anyone else reporting it.

Jay Bee

12th November 2006, 20:51

Just did a quick tryout of the new Elecard encoder beta: you can add Elecard MBAFF to Mainconcept MBAFF and interlaced x264 on the list of files that CoreAVC can't deinterlace.

BetaBoy

12th November 2006, 20:59

By Wednesday that will be a mute point ;-)

bond

12th November 2006, 21:16

Just did a quick tryout of the new Elecard encoder beta: you can add Elecard MBAFF to Mainconcept MBAFF and interlaced x264 on the list of files that CoreAVC can't deinterlace.elecard = mainconcept and x264 also uses mbaff

Jay Bee

12th November 2006, 21:57

By Wednesday that will be a mute point ;-)

http://www.funkyfridge.com/shop/images/AB-BP-24805-I.jpg

OFF TOPIC:
elecard = mainconcept and x264 also uses mbaff

I see. I've always been a bit confused by that. Are they the same company or is one company licensing the encoder from the othe company or is it a joint development project or something entirely different?

bond

12th November 2006, 22:09

same company

CruNcher

13th November 2006, 05:33

Mainconcept (Germany) acquired Elecard (Russia) some time ago and now the (IP) is merging more or less into each other, Mainconcept Develops Industry Solutions and Elecard does more Endconsumer Solutions now.

JohnnyFu

13th November 2006, 05:39

double post, delete me

JohnnyFu

13th November 2006, 05:48

http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/23/1_003.png
http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/23/2_000.png

So can anyone confirm that Nvidia AVC decoding actually never does deblocking and it's not just some bug with my 6600 GT AGP card? I had been thinking that it's just me because I hadn't seen anyone else reporting it.

Oo... wtf... I can't confirm that. Never saw such block-artefacts and i never heard of it before... So Cyberlinks deblocking works for me.

Btw picture quality, I never saw a big differences between CoreAVC and Cyberlink. Ok maybe sometimes.... e.g. a little flicker produced by CoreAVC on a BBC HD Galapagos episode but nothing big and Cyberlinks decoder often produces a thin stripe on the bottom of the picture.

Shinigami-Sama

13th November 2006, 09:04

By Wednesday that will be a mute point ;-)

*moot

but thats good to know :)

blubberbirne

13th November 2006, 12:27

*moot

but thats good to know :)

Let us see, what will be on Wednesday ;)

CruNcher

13th November 2006, 19:11

Btw picture quality, I never saw a big differences between CoreAVC and Cyberlink. Ok maybe sometimes.... e.g. a little flicker produced by CoreAVC on a BBC HD Galapagos episode but nothing big and Cyberlinks decoder often produces a thin stripe on the bottom of the picture.

There is a bigger Chroma upsample Difference with Mainconcept/Elecard and FFDShow being best Cyberlink and CoreAVC are only moderate in those regards and as i said this has also an inpact on Rendering speeds and here Mainconcept/Elecards Decoder has an advantage over FFDshow (it uses Hardware accelleration too) and looks visualy better then both with it enabled @ the moment, this problem is known to CoreAVC and as Betaboy previously said a better quality mode is in the works.

There will be a big test soon from me (for now those are only my beta testing results) but im still working out the test conditions.

avtar

13th November 2006, 20:10

By Wednesday that will be a mute point ;-)

BUT Beta boy you fail to mention which Wednesday!!!!

bob0r

14th November 2006, 07:30

Touché!

iwod

14th November 2006, 09:06

Do you have plans for a QuickTime component for Mac OS X?
It would be great to have H264 high profile decoding at such speeds built into QuickTime.

any plan on the mac?

Oxygen

14th November 2006, 10:15

I'm no lawyer, so youre right, I might be wrong. But I'm pretty sure, that the (our) law protects me from companys proposing a million features to be included in a later release and not including them "in time". Core can say in 20 Years, they will include it in a later release. Untill today GPU accel is a feature I bought as stated on their site.

foxyshadis is perfectly right, Corecodec indicated clearly that theses features where future additions to the initial release. You should really look deaper into laws, what they enforce and what they allow, and stop BS about that.

As for that
But I still think that I have the right to get GPU support without activation.
I dont' see the logic here. What right ? When you bought XP (did you ?) at the initial time, did you threatned microsoft to sue them because now they enforce WGA with windows updates, while not enforcing them at that time ?
You should be glad to have free upgrades, not all companies provide that. But you have to commit to the whole upgrade. You can't have the cake with no dishes afterwards, or any other metaphor you want.

Don't take me wrong, i disagree with the activation process too, for various reasons.
crypto the industry is forcing them todo if you wana play buisness you have to follow the rules this is how it goes, and (IP) protection is one of these, for the ultimate growth (and the ferrari in the backyard)
But as CruNcher stated, the issue is more global. It's not just about corecodec being an a**.
I may recall wrong, but as far as i remember, the free upgrade is normally not free in term of MPEG LA licences. What they manage to agree with the MPEG LA is that they could provide free upgrades as long as they forced the licences to stick to a computer.

Sadly, i don't see any other solutions but that one.

Anyway, what i'd really like is to be able to add other computers to the licence linked to my coreaccount, at a discounted price of course. That way i could install legally coreavc on my laptop, and my media computer, that i can't really do (legally) right now.
Otherwise, i tend to agree with all critics to the activation process, but what choice do we have otherwise ? To pay full price for all 1.x > 1.y upgrades ? Well, i'd pass on that one thanks and choose the later one :)

14th November 2006, 16:36

So can anyone confirm that Nvidia AVC decoding actually never does deblocking and it's not just some bug with my 6600 GT AGP card? I had been thinking that it's just me because I hadn't seen anyone else reporting it.
It's not a bug, same picture in some videos on
GF6600 PCI-E
GF7600 GT PCI-E
GF7900 GT PCI-E
in powerdvd, but, in nero picture quality is normal....but no big speedup. Also, same artifacts on ATI X1900XTX in both powerdvd and nero with near the same speed, so I think that it's codec problem, not videocard....
But on some videos, even with DxVA there are no such artefacts, and for now, I don't understand why....

wiak

14th November 2006, 20:10

Disabled

14th November 2006, 20:38

When you bought XP (did you ?) at the initial time, did you threatned microsoft to sue them because now they enforce WGA with windows updates, while not enforcing them at that time ?
The difference is, that MS did not say "firewall included (to be added at a later date)" and forced WGA before delivering promised features. (And yes, I have two legal XP versions and CoreAVC is the only non OSS software I have on my computer besides some freewares from very trusted sources)
I'll stop arguing that way as I have no intention at all to go to the court.

Other thoughts:
What will happen in ~5 Years with my legally bought software? They will have droped support for this version (and free updates to come) by then, but till when will the activation servers be online? I just read about Adobe not supporting the activation of GoLive 5.0 anymore. Do I have to go back to 1.1 then? Or will it in that scenario be legal to use illegal software with my legal license?
What happens if Core ever will go bankrupt?

The Codec will be tied to the computer? What happens if I change hardware?
I will at least install it into a VMWare image to see what it does and see that it will not harm my system or phone home regularly or needs to be reactivated if I change hardware and the test process I do with every untrusted software. After that I might install it on my system, that would make two activations in a short time on completely different systems. Is that Ok?
Does the activation get reverted after uninstallation?
How often am I allowed to activate the software?
...

I still wonder how long it will take 1.2 to be released illegaly on the net...

Inventive Software

14th November 2006, 20:51

Pardon me Disabled, but with that attitude you can kindly STFU and accept the world's a bitch. It's society as we know and love to hate it. Get over it!

<rant>Most people (vast generalisation, humble apologies) who bought it wanted the GPU acceleration in future so that their fancy new NVIDIA or ATI graphics card's GPU would have something to do when they watched their HD or Standard Definition broadcasts, regardless of the fact that the CPU was doing all the work, and CoreAVC was doing it's job flawlessly without any assistance from the GPU. It's a boasting feature IMO, and nothing more. Dual-core CPUs and efficient coding mean that GPU acceleration isn't really necessary, unless (and it's a big unless) you have a CPU that's at least 2 generations out of date and is single core. Even then, there's only so much the GPU can do. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Purevideo took ages to get right. Expect CoreAVC and the CoreCodec team to have the same problem and need to work around them.</rant>

CoreCodec: You're doing a wonderful job. If I wasn't a hard-up student, I'd have paid for CoreAVC Professional by now to enjoy my DVD backups properly. :)

Disabled

14th November 2006, 22:03

Pardon me Disabled, but with that attitude you can kindly STFU and accept the world's a bitch. It's society as we know and love to hate it. Get over it!

I guess youre right. The one half does not know about the internet and accept everything, the other half says "are you stupid using originals? You have much less fuss with warez", and they are often right, like with software you have to activate...
At least the majority of the ppl I know fall into these two categories and I left both a long time ago.

Jay Bee

14th November 2006, 23:37

It's not a bug, same picture in some videos on
GF6600 PCI-E
GF7600 GT PCI-E
GF7900 GT PCI-E
in powerdvd, but, in nero picture quality is normal....but no big speedup. Also, same artifacts on ATI X1900XTX in both powerdvd and nero with near the same speed, so I think that it's codec problem, not videocard....

Good info. How come none of the review sites noticed this?
Essentially this means that Nvidia Purevideo AVC is still broken, over two years after its announcment. Or is there a combination of GPU and decoder that actually deblocks and performs considerably better than an average CPU?

But on some videos, even with DxVA there are no such artefacts, and for now, I don't understand why....

Have you tried these clips with CoreAVC with deblocking switched off? Maybe these clips are just encoded in a way where they don't benefit from deblocking.

BetaBoy

15th November 2006, 00:43

any plan on the mac?
Yes... by 1.3 we will have a QT component if not much sooner.

15th November 2006, 02:25

Good info. How come none of the review sites noticed this?
Because it's happens not at all files, I notices it only on third or fourth test launch....

Essentially this means that Nvidia Purevideo AVC is still broken, over two years after its announcment. Or is there a combination of GPU and decoder that actually deblocks and performs considerably better than an average CPU?
No, it's mean that codec developer implements DxVA in that way, because in nero on NV picture is normal....But no big speedup :)

Have you tried these clips with CoreAVC with deblocking switched off? Maybe these clips are just encoded in a way where they don't benefit from deblocking.
Not yet, but tomorrow I'll got ATI X1650 PRO on tests, and later retests NV 7600 GT.....