CoreCodec/H.264 Codec "CoreAVC"

[BlackSun]

Good to hear that you are looking into it. BTW the deinterlacing problem is not just with EVR, it's with WMR7/8 as well.


We're looking into it. I tried this morning that flag dwInterlaceFlags: 0x000000a1 but this does not solve the problem. We're going to look deeper. Thanks for the tip btw.

[Momber]

Does the clip play choppy due to it?
Yes it does. Even with deblocking disabled.

[Momber]

And so did Momber who you even replied to.

FWIW, I tried hardware deinterlacing with 1.6.5 on a (truly interlaced) 1080i 50fps H.264 file and it worked OK. Using XP, Overlay Mixer, ZP 5.0, with a Radeon x1800xl.
With software deinterlacing on the same clip I get A/V heavily off synch after only a few seconds.

BTW, Core 1.6.5 would not connect to either splitter from Cyberlink or Elecard. Needed to call Haali into action, which is not my fav splitter for 1080i H.264 transport streams.

S.

[Episodio1]

BlackSun, maybe you could tell us a short explanation when you fix something in CoreAVC. Just for curiosity. :)

[Sulik]

Yup, the dwInterlaceFlags values in 1.6 are wrong, it should really be using 0x81 or 0x85, ie: AMINTERLACE_IsInterlaced |
AMINTERLACE_DisplayModeBobOrWeave, then signal bob/weave and/or tff/bff by using the dwTypeSpecificFlags on the media samples (that's really basic dshow stuff).

[langman10]

Thanks Beta Boy for Core 1.6.5

I (and others) are still struggling with Avisynth compatibility, while 1.5 is Avisynth-happy.

Here's (http://rapidshare.com/files/88400466/20071219115849.m2ts.html) a 16-second .m2ts file shot on a camera.

With Core 1.6.5 I can open this file directly in WMP and it plays in sync.

In Avisynth I create a script directshowsource("file.m2ts"). When loaded in vdubmod it shows number of frames is 22173 and fps is 1387. Trying to play this script gives the message "couldn't initialize timer!" So I add changefps(29.97) to the script. Now number of frames and fps is accurate but a message pops up that "Changefps: Ratio must be less than 10 for linear access. Set LINEAR=false" which I do add. So my script is

directshowsource("file.m2ts")
changefps(29.97,linear=false)

The script plays very choppy in vdubmod, and an avi I create from vdubmod has random one-frame jitters like this (http://rapidshare.com/files/88402526/coreavc_avisynth_jitter.avi.html).

Deinterlacing is off. This behavior occurs with deblocking on or off. Any ideas?

Langman

[JohnnyFu]

Better late then never, the christmas edition is out :D

BetaBoy, gawky Johnny has deleted his update notification mail for 1.6.5 :helpful:, please check you pm's.

[oddball]

Just came to say thanks for:

- Add: Support for MV out of specs (fix artifacts for buggy files)

Finally listening to your customers. It's a good step to take. :)

[Ryokurin]

EVR is available in Vista

Its also available in XP when you install .net framework 3.0. This is where most of the patches that bob0r is referring to gets it from.

[BetaBoy]

Just came to say thanks for:

- Add: Support for MV out of specs (fix artifacts for buggy files)

Finally listening to your customers. It's a good step to take. :)

Who didn't know you were gonna jump in on this? ;-) So your saying creating non-compliant AVC support is a good thing? I voted no for adding it. But for the time being we want playback as fluid as possible since we are the leading H.264 software decoder atm, so it made sense.... but by the time 2.0 comes out we will remove non-compliant MV support for sure.

[BetaBoy]

which is not my fav splitter for 1080i H.264 transport streams.
S.

Just curious... What is your fav for 1080i and why?

[Disabled]

So your saying creating non-compliant AVC support is a good thing? I voted no for adding it. But for the time being we want playback as fluid as possible since we are the leading H.264 software decoder atm, so it made sense.... but by the time 2.0 comes out we will remove non-compliant MV support for sure.

I really can't understand you. Is there an encoder out there producing out of spec streams? Non-Spec streams will die out by themselves, but why do you want to upset those who still have one lying around?

[Dark Shikari]

I really can't understand you. Is there an encoder out there producing out of spec streams? Non-Spec streams will die out by themselves, but why do you want to upset those who still have one lying around?x264 produced out-of-spec streams before this revision (http://trac.videolan.org/x264/changeset/697) and this revision (http://trac.videolan.org/x264/changeset/663).

Since versions of libx264 and x264 before those revisions will continue to be around for years due to the stable version policy of Debian systems and similar, we will continue to see out-of-spec streams made by them.

[Shakey_Jake33]

Who didn't know you were gonna jump in on this? ;-) So your saying creating non-compliant AVC support is a good thing? I voted no for adding it. But for the time being we want playback as fluid as possible since we are the leading H.264 software decoder atm, so it made sense.... but by the time 2.0 comes out we will remove non-compliant MV support for sure.
Is there any need to remove it? I agree non-compliant streams are not a good thing, but is there a benefit in removing it? Don't really see the point otherwise.

[Disabled]

those revisions will continue to be around for years due to the stable version policy of Debian systems and similar, we will continue to see out-of-spec streams made by them.
Thanks for this answer, I forgot about those systems. But then again I think that the number of ppl knowing about x264 and actively using an old version is rather small compared to the amount of ppl that made encodes in the days x264 had no fix for the problem, thus bad encodes in the homes and in the wild will definately get lower (at least in per cent).

But then:
Is there any need to remove it? I agree non-compliant streams are not a good thing, but is there a benefit in removing it? Don't really see the point otherwise.
And I see no reason too. While I do understand that implementations of HTML parsers allowing to much non-spec stuff make it very hard to create HTML that look ok in every browser, the problem is much less pronounced here. Unlike HTML, AVC is a standard everyone tries to comply with. So if there was one isolated issue, it won't create a mess to support it for legacy purpose. And it won't start a trend, that h264 encoders will create non-spec files every decoder has to swallow.

[Eretria-chan]

Is there any need to remove it? I agree non-compliant streams are not a good thing, but is there a benefit in removing it? Don't really see the point otherwise.

I would see a benefit.
If removed in 2.0, it will force everyone with 2.0 to make standards compliant specs (or lose compability with decoders!). If you just continue to support it, then people will continue to make non-standard compliant streams (why stop doing the way you've always known when it works?). That's life.
But if you still want to play non-standard, then you should use an older version.

[Dark Shikari]

I would see a benefit.
If removed in 2.0, it will force everyone with 2.0 to make standards compliant specs (or lose compability with decoders!). If you just continue to support it, then people will continue to make non-standard compliant streams (why stop doing the way you've always known when it works?). That's life.
But if you still want to play non-standard, then you should use an older version.No major encoders, in their latest version, allow non-compliant streams (as far as I know). So that's not really a valid argument.

[Eretria-chan]

No, it makes sure they stay compliant and no "small" new encoder gets the urge to make non-compliant streams :)
If there is no decoder to decode it, then you can't make such encodes!

[Dark Shikari]

No, it makes sure they stay compliant and no "small" new encoder gets the urge to make non-compliant streams :)
If there is no decoder to decode it, then you can't make such encodes!This is an invalid argument also, because libavcodec is currently the most popular software PC H.264 decoder in the world (because its free, primarily) and has no limits on MV size.

As a result, if someone's encoder does generate non-compliant streams, most users will view it as "oh, CoreAVC is buggering out again, I guess I'll go back to using reliable libavcodec."

Your argument only works if you can convince libavcodec (along with all others that don't specifically limit MV size) to stop supporting them, which in many cases takes more code.

Remember, also, the standard does not say "decoders cannot support MVs above X size"; it says "MVs cannot be above X size." It does not define what the decoder should do with such an MV.

[ChronoCross]

This is an invalid argument also, because libavcodec is currently the most popular software PC H.264 decoder in the world (because its free, primarily) and has no limits on MV size.

As a result, if someone's encoder does generate non-compliant streams, most users will view it as "oh, CoreAVC is buggering out again, I guess I'll go back to using reliable libavcodec."

actually the only people who would think this are people whom currently know of the issue (mainly doom9 people).

The rest of the people who in the future purchase coreavc will just think the stream is broken.

anything that comes from a legitimate source (aka not pirated) will be spec compliant and is more than likely Core's target audience.

[Dark Shikari]

actually the only people who would think this are people whom currently know of the issue (mainly doom9 people).

The rest of the people who in the future purchase coreavc will just think the stream is broken.Completely incorrect, from experience. Here's the general process:

A: "My MKV files are playing too slow! What should I do?"
B: Get CoreAVC. Its only like 15 bucks.
A: OK, I'll try that. This better help!
...
A: Sweet, it works. Thanks a lot!
...
...
A: I'm getting some blockiness in some of my videos, and its in the same place every time. But my friend plays the same videos and they're fine!
B: Have you tried turning off CoreAVC?
A: OK.
...
A: Its fixed! Wait, is CoreAVC buggy?
B: Probably.

anything that comes from a legitimate source (aka not pirated) will be spec compliant and is more than likely Core's target audience.I don't know a single person who has purchased CoreAVC for watching anything other than pirated HD rips.

Overall, the issue is not very important; very few streams have such MVs, and rarely in more than a couple minor places. The point is that restricting yourself to every last rule in the standard isn't always a good thing--a classic example is the rule that one may not have more than 16 motion vectors per MB pair for levels higher than 3.1 (I think?) CoreAVC doesn't enforce this. Nothing enforces this. If it did, loads of streams would break.

Remember, the standard does not require decoders to enforce the rules in the standard. The standard merely defines what a compliant stream should look like.

[molitar]

Question: What is the skip when safe deblocking mode do? Does it intelligently know if deblocking is required and use it or just skips using it the majority of the time?

[ChronoCross]

C
A: I'm getting some blockiness in some of my videos, and its in the same place every time. But my friend plays the same videos and they're fine!
B: Have you tried turning off CoreAVC?
A: OK.
...
A: Its fixed! Wait, is CoreAVC buggy?
B: Probably.

I don't know a single person who has purchased CoreAVC for watching anything other than pirated HD rips.


your assuming that they are looking for the blocks. Again this is something only experienced encoders look for. People using stuff for everyday playback generally expect there to be at least some blocking and will ignore it. Hell even my cable gets a little blocky once in awhile and I spend a good amount of cash on it.

As for the second part of your answer, kinda all the more reason they shouldn't support it. Once again why have a workaround for something only illegal material have. Since they are a legitimate business their focus is legal material and therefore they should only support what the specs say it should.

I actually have quite a bit more discussion on this floating in my head but it would take me about an hour to type up something coherent and well that doesn't quite work for me lol.

[Dark Shikari]

As for the second part of your answer, kinda all the more reason they shouldn't support it. Once again why have a workaround for something only illegal material have. Since they are a legitimate business their focus is legal material and therefore they should only support what the specs say it should.Real businesses are smart.

Apple for example knew that when they released the iPod, almost none of their customers owned enough music to nearly fill it--they knew the only reason it could possibly be a success is if people pirated boatloads of music.

And they did, and Apple made billions upon billions. If not for music piracy, the iPod would have been a complete flop. This was not coincidence. Apple took this fully into account before releasing the iPod.

[BetaBoy]

Real businesses are smart.

Apple for example knew that when they released the iPod, almost none of their customers owned enough music to nearly fill it--they knew the only reason it could possibly be a success is if people pirated boatloads of music.

And they did, and Apple made billions upon billions. If not for music piracy, the iPod would have been a complete flop. This was not coincidence. Apple took this fully into account before releasing the iPod.

Come now DS.... Your point is taken 3x over now but you are not understanding the points I made x pages back (or are for arguements sake). Stacking non-compliant features and bloat related to them over time is what we don't want/need... But did so in this case in the short term because of the demand.

[Dark Shikari]

Come now DS.... Your point is taken 3x over now but you are not understanding the points I made x pages back (or are for arguements sake). Stacking non-compliant features and bloat related to them over time is what we don't want/need... But did so in this case in the short term because of the demand.Yes, I understand what you mean. This point has been beaten to a pulp.

In terms of "bloat supporting non-compliant features," one has to remember the issue isn't that its non-compliant; the issue is bloat. As I said earlier, there are many restrictions in the standard that actually take more code to abide by, and therefore CoreAVC doesn't abide by them.

In the MV case, it obviously depends on how CoreAVC is coded, which I don't expect to know ;)

While you're here, can you answer my question about "skip deblocking when safe"?

[Shinigami-Sama]

Real businesses are smart.

Apple for example knew that when they released the iPod, almost none of their customers owned enough music to nearly fill it--they knew the only reason it could possibly be a success is if people pirated boatloads of music.

And they did, and Apple made billions upon billions. If not for music piracy, the iPod would have been a complete flop. This was not coincidence. Apple took this fully into account before releasing the iPod.

that and they allowed for normal files to exist on the ipod
I know a lot of people that use their failpod for moving files around as well
usually pirated movies though

[ChronoCross]

Real businesses are smart.

Apple for example knew that when they released the iPod, almost none of their customers owned enough music to nearly fill it--they knew the only reason it could possibly be a success is if people pirated boatloads of music.

And they did, and Apple made billions upon billions. If not for music piracy, the iPod would have been a complete flop. This was not coincidence. Apple took this fully into account before releasing the iPod.

That's kind of a different scenario. They didn't have to alter their product based on piracy. in fact they altered AAC to try and prevent piracy.

Similarly Core could do the same by removing support for out of spec videos. Granted this will only stop older material but it will show a higher moral fiber since you stated that a majority of material is in fact pirated. The only way to truly be against piracy is to stop making your product. The same could go for x264, is x264 a success because of piracy?

Simply knowing that your product will in some way be used for illegal means doesn't mean you should support it simply because you will make a few extra bucks.

[Dark Shikari]

That's kind of a different scenario. They didn't have to alter their product based on piracy. in fact they altered AAC to try and prevent piracy of their own music. They did nothing for music anyone else sold.Fixed that for you.

Also, you might be interested to know that people don't only encode TV show rips with x264. They also use it for perfectly legitimate videos. Many corporations do, in fact; I helped one the other day who was using x264 Core 50 in mencoder for distributing streaming video--which would indeed have had the bug.

Google also uses x264, from what I've heard.

[ChronoCross]

Fixed that for you.

Also, you might be interested to know that people don't only encode TV show rips with x264. They also use it for perfectly legitimate videos. Many corporations do, in fact; I helped one the other day who was using x264 Core 50 in mencoder for distributing streaming video--which would indeed have had the bug.

Google also uses x264, from what I've heard.

So what your suggesting is the only music that products should allow are DRM ones correct as that would be the only viable way to say you are against piracy? Kinda defeats the mindset of these forums.

As for the people using core 50, they should probably update. It's like not applying a service pack update to your OS, you know the risks and must accept the consequences when you get exploited or something doesn't work right.

As for "can do no evil" Google (the Mozilla spell checker actually capitalized it, crazy) using it, if I see it I'll believe it. Honestly I think they would be in favor of following the standards. Else we end up in the IE paradox, having to write every piece of software thereafter to support the problems of old non-standard webpages.

[Dark Shikari]

As for the people using core 50, they should probably update. It's like not applying a service pack update to your OS, you know the risks and must accept the consequences when you get exploited or something doesn't work right.But you run into the classic problem: people use Debian. :p

Or moreso, since x264 has no stable version, distributions create their own stable versions as part of policy. As such, it takes up to 12 months, or even more, for a fix to backpropagate to all users.

Its even worse for x264, because people use libx264 through mencoder/ffmpeg, and as a result they don't realize how old their libx264 is. I've run into people with the latest SVN build of mencoder... and a 2006 libx264.

[Disabled]

I think not including non-spec-mv-support because of the pirates is a ridiculous idea. Pirates usually are the first to use new builds, because they aim for maximum quality and don't mind updating their software every day. So I would say, illegal material has a lower percentage of out of spec files, than legally (x264 encoded) files has. (#illegal in spec/#illegal out-ofspec > #legal in spec/#legal out-spec) Or your argument is: x264 has a small legal userbase, let's not support them.
And then again, as the computers decoding h264 get faster every day, Core has less and less a selling point, so I can't understand why they are trying to play the format police to enforce the law.
And once again: There won't be a run to create out of spec files. I agree it WAS a good thing Core did not support it, because else the error would probably not have been detected. But now there is no good reason to remove support.

[Rectal Prolapse]

ChronoCross: CoreAVC's biggest fanboy. :P

Anyways, thanks for putting in more options for 1.6.5. And the removal of DRM is very nice too (from 1.6).

Thank you for listening to your customers and not just the fanboys!

[ChronoCross]

ChronoCross: CoreAVC's biggest fanboy. :P

Anyways, thanks for putting in more options for 1.6.5. And the removal of DRM is very nice too (from 1.6).

Thank you for listening to your customers and not just the fanboys!

Or perhaps someone that enjoys discussion rather than blindly following the masses. but then again someone with a name like yours must make an ass of himself quite often.

[Momber]

Just curious... What is your fav for 1080i and why?
Either Elecard or, for the few files it doesn't work with, Cyberlink, Gabest or Sonic.
Playback is smoother on my machine with Elecard in comparison to Haali.

[molitar]

Well someone needs to get their act together at CoreCodec! 2 days after I purchased my CoreAVC Pro 1.6.5 my serial is no good! It wouldn't register just gave an initialization error! After NEARLY destroying my system removing all codecs and running all types of registry software (might end up having to do a repair install not sure if I recovered it from all the attempts) to only find out they sold me an invalid serial number! What the heck?

After finding this out on the CoreCodec forums I went and downloaded a pirated version to test what I read and sure enough.. I have a working CoreAVC 1.6.5! Pretty sorry that I have to find a pirated version to run a software that I paid for!
You all really need to get your act together or people won't purchase software from you when it's easier to download and get working a pirated version.

And BETTER fix the damn error message because I nearly DESTROYED my entire Operating System thinking it was a registry error or something and not an invalid serial number! That is not acceptable at all for any software to not install and not inform you why causing a near destruction of your customers operating system!

[ChronoCross]

Well someone needs to get their act together at CoreCodec! 2 days after I purchased my CoreAVC Pro 1.6.5 my serial is no good! It wouldn't register just gave an initialization error! After NEARLY destroying my system removing all codecs and running all types of registry software (might end up having to do a repair install not sure if I recovered it from all the attempts) to only find out they sold me an invalid serial number! What the heck?

After finding this out on the CoreCodec forums I went and downloaded a pirated version to test what I read and sure enough.. I have a working CoreAVC 1.6.5! Pretty sorry that I have to find a pirated version to run a software that I paid for!
You all really need to get your act together or people won't purchase software from you when it's easier to download and get working a pirated version.

And BETTER fix the damn error message because I nearly DESTROYED my entire Operating System thinking it was a registry error or something and not an invalid serial number! That is not acceptable at all for any software to not install and not inform you why causing a near destruction of your customers operating system!

Did you open a support ticket with them? I would gather you didn't.

[molitar]

Did you open a support ticket with them? I would gather you didn't.

Yes I did.. but the point is that their error message doesn't say it's an invalid serial.. and I end up wasting hours of my precious time almost destroying my system! Half a day gone and not able to watch my shows because it just stopped working and gave no reason why! If it would said something informative about serial or registration I could of contacted support sooner and been most likely back in business without almost destroying my entire setup.

[Dark Shikari]

Did you open a support ticket with them? I would gather you didn't.Though I suspect those people with problems should have opened a ticket, I have noticed a proliferation of posts on other forums where people have had similar problems (though it was merely an annoyance, not "destroying one's operating system" as the poster claims). One really interesting thing I've found is on very piracy-oriented forums, many people still pay for CoreAVC. This struck me as somewhat odd, given that they hardly pay for anything else.

A post from a private tracker forum:
I have a legal license to use CoreAVC Pro. I installed the 1.6.5 update the other day. It worked fine. Until today when I tried to play something and saw it was not loading the filter. I tried to re-register the filter. It gave me an error about LoadLibrary failing. I uninstalled and reinstalled. No good. I did a chkdsk and sfc /scannow. No dice. I eventually found something in the CoreCodec forums about it and someone said that they must be entering their serial number wrong. Mine is correct and I even cut and pasted it bit by bit from the email I got ages ago to make sure. It installed fine but again it failed to register. So on that basis I went and downloaded the EDGE version. Installed and used their keygen. Voila! It works again!

So I dunno. Maybe my key got blacklisted or something. DRM surely sucks balls. I have a legal licence to use it so I have no remorse over doing this.
I doubt this will be a big problem for CoreAVC even if many people switch to pirated copies, as they will likely switch back when the next update comes around.

[molitar]

Though I suspect those people with problems should have opened a ticket, I have noticed a proliferation of posts on other forums where people have had similar problems (though it was merely an annoyance, not "destroying one's operating system" as the poster claims). One really interesting thing I've found is on very piracy-oriented forums, many people still pay for CoreAVC. This struck me as somewhat odd, given that they hardly pay for anything else.

I paid for it and I found out what the problem was on the corecodec forum I just registered at. But the first place I looked was in their own knowledge base which is TOTALLY and UTTERLY useless since it only has 5 items listed for coreavc and not a single one is about the initialization error! Who would suspect a software would just stop working and blow up 2 days after purchasing the new version?

Two really stupid things by CoreCodec.. A very undescriptive erro message making me think it was a system error and not my serial being invalid just after 2 days of receiving it! Second no mention of this problem on the knowledge base for CoreCodec. The two places that I should look first and neither has the problem detailed.. Software should be first.. knowledge base should be second.

[ChronoCross]

Though I suspect those people with problems should have opened a ticket, I have noticed a proliferation of posts on other forums where people have had similar problems (though it was merely an annoyance, not "destroying one's operating system" as the poster claims). One really interesting thing I've found is on very piracy-oriented forums, many people still pay for CoreAVC. This struck me as somewhat odd, given that they hardly pay for anything else.

A post from a private tracker forum:

It's much cheaper than replacing an entire system. I can spend $15 or $1500.

I suspect you would see a similar trend on those same forums if other software were cheaper as a majority of good software is incredibly overpriced.

[ChronoCross]

I paid for it and I found out what the problem was on the corecodec forum I just registered at. But the first place I looked was in their own knowledge base which is TOTALLY and UTTERLY useless since it only has 5 items listed for coreavc and not a single one is about the initialization error! Who would suspect a software would just stop working and blow up 2 days after purchasing the new version?

Two really stupid things by CoreCodec.. A very undescriptive erro message making me think it was a system error and not my serial being invalid just after 2 days of receiving it! Second no mention of this problem on the knowledge base for CoreCodec. The two places that I should look first and neither has the problem detailed.. Software should be first.. knowledge base should be second.

if you had opened a ticket this probably would have been resolved without you having to touch a thing on your machine other than maybe reinstalling CoreAVC.

How does one go about adding something to the knowledge base if the only thing they see are random people flaming on various forums? If a support ticket is raised then all they have to do is narrow down the issue, and provide you with a fix.

[molitar]

if you had opened a ticket this probably would have been resolved without you having to touch a thing on your machine other than maybe reinstalling CoreAVC.

How does one go about adding something to the knowledge base if the only thing they see are random people flaming on various forums? If a support ticket is raised then all they have to do is narrow down the issue, and provide you with a fix.

Yes but this issue should have already been in the knowledge base and not having me almost destroying my system trying to figure out why it won't register.. this happened back in version 1.5 I have found on corecode forum.. posted on August 17, 2007.. So this old issue SHOULD have been in the knowledge base! I wouldn't have wasted half a day.. I would of emailed them immediately for a fix knowing it was not a system problem with file registration. What good is a knowledge base if they are not putting known issues in it?

[ChronoCross]

Yes but this issue should have already been in the knowledge base and not having me almost destroying my system trying to figure out why it won't register.. this happened back in version 1.5 I have found on corecode forum.. posted on August 17, 2007.. So this old issue SHOULD have been in the knowledge base! I wouldn't have wasted half a day.. I would of emailed them immediately for a fix knowing it was not a system problem with file registration. What good is a knowledge base if they are not putting known issues in it?

so your alternative because it wasn't in the knowledge base was to rip your own machine apart? Also did you confirm that your issue is indeed the serial key problem? Just because it looks like a coke can doesn't mean there is coke inside. Perhaps instead of using a pirated copy you could get your legitimate and legal copy working (as what your currently using is considered a violation of the DMCA Chapter 121 Section 1201).

[Shinigami-Sama]

Yes but this issue should have already been in the knowledge base and not having me almost destroying my system trying to figure out why it won't register.. this happened back in version 1.5 I have found on corecode forum.. posted on August 17, 2007.. So this old issue SHOULD have been in the knowledge base! I wouldn't have wasted half a day.. I would of emailed them immediately for a fix knowing it was not a system problem with file registration. What good is a knowledge base if they are not putting known issues in it?

your fault for thrashing your system
core's fault for not being descriptive
core's fault for not keeping their info updated ( I check every month or so to see whats going and if I want to buy it yet )

or is not the best for support - but remember they're a very small company
they are getting better

also
many people I know buy a license of coreavc and just use a cracked version after a while due to the idiotic activation scheme

[molitar]

Yes it is pretty sorry for a legal serial to just crap out.. didn't even last 2 days. It isn't like I can wait a day or two everytime it decides to crap out for no reason whatsoever. Also sorry they don't say what is wrong but instead just say it can not be registered making me believe it was a bad registry or or some dll needed to be re-registered.. who is going to believe their serial is invalid 2 days after activating it?

Who is going to believe that it is a serial issue when it acts like a registration error instead.. if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck the common census is going to be it's a duck.. not a chicken. But in this case it's not a duck but a chicken all because they were too lazy to put in descriptive error messages like invalid serial number. After all when you look up initialization errors are often shlwapi.dll as well as a few other dlls.. or registry permissions or bad keys.. so first thing someone is going to try is to re-register dlls and run registry cleaners and repair softwares.

[foxyshadis]

You can spend anywhere from 2 to 200 hours waiting for core to reply to your ticket, or you can spend some time researching your own problem and fix it on your own so you can actually watch the movie some time tonight, right? c'mon, CC, people can reasonably expect support for self-fixable issues, and given core's track record with personal support you'd think they'd want to have the best knowledgebase they could make.

On the other hand, we do have a thread dedicated to bitching about core already, this is getting a little full.

[BlackSun]

Molitar, can you PM me your Paypal email address please ? I will check your serial.

[ChronoCross]

You can spend anywhere from 2 to 200 hours waiting for core to reply to your ticket, or you can spend some time researching your own problem and fix it on your own so you can actually watch the movie some time tonight, right? c'mon, CC, people can reasonably expect support for self-fixable issues, and given core's track record with personal support you'd think they'd want to have the best knowledgebase they could make.

On the other hand, we do have a thread dedicated to bitching about core already, this is getting a little full.

your making an assumption foxyshadis. Just because you've heard of peoples tickets not being answered quickly does not mean that is the way it is. You could spend some time researching your own problem but at the same time would you really want to screw with the windows registry? There are usually big warnings that say "if you don't know what changing x does, don't"

[clsid]

So you claim all those people are liars? Anyway, I think you are failing to understand the point that foxyshadis is trying to make. Why contact support at all if you can fix something yourself?

And given proper instructions even retards can safely edit the registry.