View Full Version : CoreCodec/H.264 Codec "CoreAVC"
Guyz, please calm down. Remember that ther is (or was ?) a separate thread for all complaining etc. of CoreCodec.
I simply put down my idea of a, in my opinion bleak, future for coreAVC, when they dont come with innovative features quickly. I think that becasue they are quickly surpassed in features, speed and user-friendlyness by both big GPU-manufacturers.
And i put down my opinion hoping that we all get a healthy discussion about this. Maybe we could even exchange idea's on this subject with betaboy etc. themselves. In other words: Let discuss the subject, without flaming etc.
ChronoCross
9th May 2007, 01:31
Immature people need to get off the internet
ACrowley
9th May 2007, 08:57
Are you guys using "Standard deblocking" in CoreAVC ? I'm surprised to see those bugs are so frequent as my personal experience is completely different.
The ugly Macroblocking appears with or without deblocking
The ugly Macroblocking appears with or without deblocking
You can cut out a sample from your file to show the others :) (I know what your talking about :) , but I haven't got any at the moment.)
(with mkvmerge, or demux to mp4 then mp4box has cut function)
@ChronoCross
Please don't do a "servant bowing" because it's a clear fact that CoreAvc company is going to s*it.
And think about it, all that started when they started the DRM thing...
HowlerX
9th May 2007, 12:06
You can cut out a sample from your file to show the others :) (I know what your talking about :) , but I haven't got any at the moment.)
(with mkvmerge, or demux to mp4 then mp4box has cut function)
Try this sample:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BF2IX6WU
The ugly Macroblocking appears with or without deblocking
http://www.cccp-project.net/wiki/index.php?title=CoreAVC
or
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119187
ChronoCross
9th May 2007, 19:03
@ChronoCross
Please don't do a "servant bowing" because it's a clear fact that CoreAvc company is going to s*it.
And think about it, all that started when they started the DRM thing...
stop trolling before telling me to do something.
Jay Bee
9th May 2007, 19:23
Try this sample:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BF2IX6WU
Problem confirmed with CoreAVC 1.3. Cyberlink and ffdshow work. I wouldn't call it a blocking issue, it's plain corruption.
It might be that only certain resolutions or only h264 streams conforming with certain profiles get accelerated. Like those xvid/divs standalones that can handle only a limited number of b-frames. I would be really amazed if hardware is designed to support every h264 feature from avanced profiles. Pretty much like how the PSP only allows certain profiles and even then it has restrictions on the use of certain features when encoding to make a stream the hardware is able to handle.
Neo Fagin
11th May 2007, 16:59
stop trolling before telling me to do something.
I think at this point people are more or less laughing at you for white knighting so fiendishly for CoreAVC whenever any problems with it are brought up; it's like you invested your nest egg into the company or something and are in massive denial over the company's imminent collapse in the face of new h.264 accelerating GPUs.
The irony of course is had Core not gone with their idiotic failure of a DRM scheme, the macroblocking issue and numerous other smaller issues with the codec would have probably been mostly overlooked as minor nuisances.
Instead, here we are with CoreCodec's reputation forever tarnished by their utter failure to deliver a working product, and you looking like a fool for having defended them with such fervour to the bitter end.
The fact is that at this point, they have taken many, many people's money and not given them what they paid for, and they don't respond to queries or customer concerns. This is what is called "fraud". Frankly speaking I think BetaBoy and the Core team are going to have the disaster of the CoreAVC DRM scheme follow them to the end of time, if I was a developer of CoreAVC I certainly would be leery of putting it on my resume while looking for a job elsewhere.
Neo Fagin
11th May 2007, 17:10
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/21/backdraft1080p/mmblocks.jpg
Man now that's some quality blocking. I'm so proud I paid for this.
(In that particular x264 encoded movie, almost 1% of the frames experience this blocking when using CoreAVC)
Episode
11th May 2007, 23:18
Before this goes any further, I'd like to remind you about forum rule #4. :thanks:
4) Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with another member turn to the respective moderator and if the moderator can't help you send a private message to Doom9.
Revgen
12th May 2007, 01:24
I'm glad I bought this early. I've had no problems with the releases.
I can confirm that some of the sources you guys released do have blocking issues with my version too.
ACrowley
12th May 2007, 09:32
Problem confirmed with CoreAVC 1.3. Cyberlink and ffdshow work. I wouldn't call it a blocking issue, it's plain corruption.
not only with vers CoreAVC 1.3
Its with 1.2 too
Exactly what it looks like :
http://nwgat.net/woot/files/21/backdraft1080p/mmblocks.jpg
Mostly on Scenes with Smoke, Rain, Water
foxyshadis
15th May 2007, 13:09
It's a little past time to clean up, so recent discussion moved to New DXVA/GPU accel. discussion (from CoreAVC) (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=125835).
Flash_Git
15th May 2007, 18:55
I have a deblocking issue with 1.3. When set to "Skip All Deblocking" I find that sometimes it performs deblocking for a few frames anyway which gets distracting.
Although unrelated to the previous post (which looks like a genuine bug, although I have not tested it), I'll just write what follows since I've seen other threads where people don't understand what to expect when skipping inloop deblocking.
Once and for all: inloop deblocking is compulsory by the h264 standard. Frames that reference other frames expect those other frames to be deblocked. If those frames are not deblocked, then you get artifacts when decoding future frames that reference them.
The "skip deblocking" option in the decoder is there only so that people with not enough cpu power could at least see something, but don't expect to see an artifact free image !!!
Neo Fagin
16th May 2007, 18:18
I'll just add that the blocking is not specific to any particular profiles or encode settings. Movies I've encoded with deblock -5:-5 or deblock -1:-1 experience it, doesn't matter what bframe settings are used, doesn't matter what CQM is used. It is not (as was previously stated a long while back) specific to encodes with very strange deblock settings like -6:6 or the like.
The only correlation I've noticed is that the more grain the movie has, the more this blocking problem occurs. It looks, at least to me, like certain I MBs are being corrupted or not decoded properly by CoreAVC, resulting in block trails from blocks predicted from them, until the next I-frame or until the predicted chain ends.
As this problem even occurs on broadcast and disc sources, it is obvious that CoreAVC cannot claim itself to be a compliant decoder until this bug is fixed. If CoreCodec ever does fix this bug, such a fix should be a priority, and its customers should not be required to pay for the upgrade.
Since the Core developers have vanished from this thread and they don't even appear to reply to threads on their own forums anymore, I'm going to assume the devs have stopped work on CoreAVC to move on to other ventures. I myself want my money back, though I doubt it'll ever happen. If the developers had invested as much time into making the codec compliant and bug-free as they invested in their fruitless DRM scheme that cost them thousands of dollars of business, none of this would be happening. And the DRM was proven useless, it was broken within a day of launch - by people who needed to break it in order to use the product they paid for after the activation scheme failed.
I really wish this codec worked. It had and has a lot of promise. There's a big market for a GPU accelerated h264 codec with h264 video having such market penetration and it being essentially a replacement for MPEG-2 on discs and in appliances. But at this point I just recommend that people upgrade their system rather than paying for this product.
chros
17th May 2007, 09:42
If the developers had invested as much time into making the codec compliant and bug-free as they invested in their fruitless DRM scheme that cost them thousands of dollars of business, none of this would be happening. And the DRM was proven useless, it was broken within a day of launch - by people who needed to break it in order to use the product they paid for after the activation scheme failed.
Yep, you're right. Maybe the Core guys had discovered this too, and drop DRM, and try to focus to fix bugs.
And maybe it's theirs' chance to come back with the new DXVA 2.0 layer! I hope they realize this.
And: it's always good to have an alternative solution (I mean CoreAVC). You can decide that if it's worth it for you or not (bugs, drm), but it's very handy sometime (eg. a 29.97 fps full 720p sport material, when ffdshow can't bear with it on my Athlon X2 4600, 'cause the lack of multiprocessing).
3ngel
17th May 2007, 10:26
Yep, you're right. Maybe the Core guys had discovered this too, and drop DRM, and try to focus to fix bugs.
Unfortunately i don't think so.
If they were just a minimum smart they would have dropped the DRM thing loooooong time ago...
But they attitude has been "What?? I can't hear you... line disturbed...", and in first place they acted like their little code was something like a photoshop! but WTF! :)
Me too says what a pity, it was a promising piece of software.
clsid
17th May 2007, 13:36
I think CoreCodec is spending all their resources in the JOOST project.
Cryptum
17th May 2007, 14:59
They work for the Joost project ???
Surprise surprise !
bob0r
17th May 2007, 15:20
They work ???
Revgen
17th May 2007, 17:58
http://www.joost.com/
Neo Fagin
17th May 2007, 19:09
Well, I shouldn't be surprised, considering Joost is big money and the "few" customers who paid for the codec directly that have no working product are merely an annoyance to them by comparison, I suppose. :rolleyes:
People using Joost won't care about macroblocking.
Shinigami-Sama
17th May 2007, 19:53
I just to a 5 min fly through the site and found no reference to core, can someone show me a link or something then?
Episode
17th May 2007, 20:15
This is the only reference I could find: http://joost.com/forums/p/2007/04/10-things-you-might-not-known-about-joost/
popper
18th May 2007, 05:10
This is the only reference I could find: http://joost.com/forums/p/2007/04/10-things-you-might-not-known-about-joost/
http://joost.com/support/faq/Technology.html#What-video-decoder-does-the-client-use
I don't want to be rude, but that's a smart move from their part. Piracy of their software decoder can't be stopped but money coming in from doing business with another company is certain. I doubt they have the resources to work on multiple projects at the same time as well, so focusing only on Joost is best for Core.
Mutant_Fruit
18th May 2007, 09:44
I don't want to be rude, but that's a smart move from their part. Piracy of their software decoder can't be stopped but money coming in from doing business with another company is certain. I doubt they have the resources to work on multiple projects at the same time as well, so focusing only on Joost is best for Core.
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly OK for a company to take people's money and give them a product that does not work as expected and then for that same company to ignore all support calls and pretty much leave all their cutomers in the dark?
This is all ok? To be honest, a few "this product is not fit for the purposes it was sold for" followed with a reverse charge on the payment would probably get them to, at the very least, respond to the support calls in some manner.
ChronoCross
18th May 2007, 17:32
If your unhappy and not getting a response just do a chargeback. Instead of bitching and whining and moaning. You can just use another commercial decoder or a free one.
No point in waiting any longer if you don't think anything is going to get done. All you do is rehash the same things over and over and over.
Neo Fagin
18th May 2007, 20:59
I suspect they can no longer take paypal payments due to the number of complaints, paypal generally shuts your account off if you exceed a certain number of complaints/chargebacks in a particular timeframe. If they received enough chargebacks their merchant credit card ability would also be revoked, meaning they CAN'T effectively sell CoreAVC online any longer at this point. That could explain their payment system being fubar.
People aren't "rehashing the same points over and over" so much as they're grouping together to complain and inform potential customers that the product sucks. Multiple voices hold more weight than one.
I bought the codec too long ago to file for my money back. So bitching, and thusly costing CoreCodec further business by informing potential customers of the codec's problems and shortfalls, is my recourse.
G_M_C
19th May 2007, 08:51
Hmmmm, since the whole CoreAVC is based in the US, i'm amazed that nobody has filed suit against them yet (to ask for money, generally in the US amounting to rediculous amounts).
It amazes me because, seen from the EU where i live, it seems that everybody in the US sues everybody else for everything and every reason ( :D ) but it hasnt happened agains CC yet.
Pomyk
19th May 2007, 11:10
If they don't plan to fix the decoder and can't sell it anymore they could just release source code so somebody would fix it.
Romario
19th May 2007, 18:23
If your unhappy and not getting a response just do a chargeback. Instead of bitching and whining and moaning. You can just use another commercial decoder or a free one.
You arn't very polite, you can't talk like that to anyone on this forum, I noticed your rude behaviour long time ago, and you should stop with that. Really.
Inventive Software
19th May 2007, 18:46
You arn't very polite, you can't talk like that to anyone on this forum, I noticed your rude behaviour long time ago, and you should stop with that. Really.
You're treading a fine line between flame-threading, the pair of you. Keep it polite please. ;)
bob0r
19th May 2007, 19:16
Anyone an attorney here?
Lets team up and attack!
Before this goes any further, I'd like to remind you about forum rule #4. :thanks::stupid:
DeepBeepMeep
20th May 2007, 12:58
On a second thought they may not necessarly be dead. They may have shifted entirely to different markets where no H264hardware decoder is available or where hardware decoding is too expensive like PDA or low cost PC.
In addition, Coreavc is still a nice showcase for a CPU decoder and companies like Intel may be interested to acquire such products in order to illustrate the interest of their multicores CPU. If I remember correctly Intel has been advertising a lot on the theme "A CPU capable to handle all the multimedia tasks".
If they followed this path, this means that their customers are now OEM exclusively. Which solves the problem of support because of instead having contacts with multiple customers they have to deal with only one point of contact with an OEM customer.
That's fine with me. Although support was very bad, I can't say personnally I hadn't my money's worth. $15 isn't that much considering what other products cost.
I think this issue is no longer about money, support, or getting the hardware support (which would be useless with the latest graphich cards) it is about respect. A lot of people have been betting on CoreAvc and probably helping it to get better by pointing out bugs, they now have the feeling they have been let down.
Guys, please clarify your stance and for one time tell us what to really expect. If you really can't do that at least release a fixed version of your product. The fixed 1.3 you mentioned was fine for me and seemt to cover all my needs.
Hey Core ! It's about time you show you still care about those who have been with you since the beginning !
ChronoCross
20th May 2007, 22:19
You arn't very polite, you can't talk like that to anyone on this forum, I noticed your rude behaviour long time ago, and you should stop with that. Really.
Your one to talk KRP. You've already had one account banned and now your using this other one.
guess none of the mods noticed that your email is akostic which is KRP's real name.
Shinigami-Sama
20th May 2007, 22:21
Your one to talk KRP. You've already had one account banned and now your using this other one.
guess none of the mods noticed that your email is akostic which is KRP's real name.
As I recall you've been banned one or more times as well
so can we keep it civil here?
ChronoCross
21st May 2007, 02:46
As I recall you've been banned one or more times as well
so can we keep it civil here?
suspended once, banned are two different things.
@b0b0r
So odd your policy on suing. What's the reasoning behind your opinion on how you plan on suing the company?
Edit: I can express my opinion about all the ranting going on in this thread as much as the next person.
Inventive Software
21st May 2007, 10:52
Theres expressing your opinion, and being just plain rude. ;)
ChronoCross
21st May 2007, 16:37
Theres expressing your opinion, and being just plain rude. ;)
I treat others as they treat me. Practice what you preach please.
Romario
21st May 2007, 16:53
Hmmm, strange, very strange. You are very rude, ChronoCross, and you, unfortunately, can't see that. I am very sorry, but others are right about you.
Try to behave little better.
ChronoCross
21st May 2007, 17:38
Hmmm, strange, very strange. You are very rude, ChronoCross, and you, unfortunately, can't see that. I am very sorry, but others are right about you.
Try to behave little better.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=998848#post998848
The above post is just a little tidbit of what mister KRP has always been up to on this forum. Constantly bashing developers and begging for new features. Just click on his profile and look at all of his 200 posts. Pretty much all of them are "when are we going to have this, why isn't this done, you guys suck for not finishing this, give me this"
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=992014#post992014
Here is where he admits to being KRP.
It's something we all knew from the start that these two romario and KRP were the same person.
14) Multiple registrations are prohibited and are grounds for immediate account deletion.
Inventive Software
21st May 2007, 17:43
It's almost like you have a personal vendetta against this guy. I'm not fussed by it TBH, it's a good laugh to watch him fight the community! What I don't wanna see is you get striked for being baited by him. ;)
Romario
21st May 2007, 19:09
It's almost like you have a personal vendetta against this guy. I'm not fussed by it TBH, it's a good laugh to watch him fight the community! What I don't wanna see is you get striked for being baited by him. ;)
You are right. I bet that Chronocross doesn't have private life at all. And, he is pretty good Corecodec lawyer, I must say.
Mutant_Fruit
21st May 2007, 19:40
Can i call for this thread to be closed. It's far outlived it's usefullness. Nothing new is being found out, no new points are being made and its just degenerating into random flames and off topic-ness.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.