CoreCodec / CoreAVC ranting (un)official thread [Archive] - Page 2

Foreigner999

6th December 2006, 00:28

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

Who are they protecting thier IP from? The legit users or the ones currently using a cracked version? I just looked and coreavc 1.1.0.5 is available both as an illegal download and as part of a codec pack.

The cold hard reality without any philosophy or cash attached to it is that there are probably hundreds of people currently using coreavc that never paid for it. I am pretty sure they dont have any problems using it right now (I dont know). same story is true with coreavc 0.4 .

The legitimate users...at least the ones that have voiced their opinions are having to jump through a lot of hoops just to get their coreavc 1.2 version working. While this might be fixed in some degree I dont think there are many people in support of the drm like measures that are causing more problems for the legitimate users.

In all fairness, if you are a happy coreavc user running 1.2 then please let us know with your real forum name, so that we can track your happiness in the future with this fine product.

(sarcasm started) For those who havent bought the actual product but do have an opinion on coreavc :rolleyes: please tell us your opinion on how the product runs for you. (sarcasm ended)

foxyshadis

6th December 2006, 00:50

Core is far more of a customer relations disaster than a technical one. Some people will never appreciate the idea of renting software until the company goes out of business or shuts the servers down, and that's fine. But Core simply doesn't have the support resources, and far too many problems with email (and money!) disappearing into black holes, to adequately service the fickle population they aimed their product at. That problem has been ongoing since CoreAVC's inception, almost a year now.

Even though they've added staff, what end-users see is that they're almost always days or weeks behind. Nobody's going to appreciate more restrictions and hassle added to a product that's hardly supported now, or trust the company to stabilize and streamline it, at this point.

ChronoCross

6th December 2006, 00:53

Still doesn't answer my question. So you think it would be better to have no DRM at all for any product? Simply cause it makes the legit user have to work a little harder? Wouldn't that be a sign to the cracker/hacker that they have won? Now they won't even have to put in even a little effort to crack it. Seems kinda like everyone might as well give everything (DVD's, CD's Software) away for free.

GmorG McRoth

6th December 2006, 01:00

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

That is too extreme, some protection is needed, not to stop crackers (because it is impossible), but to remind people this is illegal to use commercial software without paying. I think most people prefer using legal software when they can, they will pay for it, just to have clean conscience. It's just important to not make their life harder than it is.

Possibly my point of view may be silly, and too idealistic, in that case ignore me, and my mumbling.

foxyshadis

6th December 2006, 01:40

I wasn't posting to answer you, CC, but I don't personally have a problem with activation done well. I'd consider Adobe's and Intuit's reasonably well done, regardless of the companys' long-term motives. What concerns me is that many are done badly, especially since there's no standard generally-available activation platform; most companies reinventing the wheel do it badly. Well, Steam might be the exception, but it's games-only so far, and it wouldn't work for a disconnected media center pc either.

Foreigner999

6th December 2006, 02:57

Still doesn't answer my question. So you think it would be better to have no DRM at all for any product? Simply cause it makes the legit user have to work a little harder?

I disagree fundamentally with some practices of copyright and the way of restricting creativity and it's fruits to be used in only one certain way. I disagree with the concept of patents. Now that i have got that out in the clear I also tend to reason through alot of things and am not the type of person to be hardcore one way or the other.

I understand the reason to TRY to protect IP but the reality of the situation is that if there is enough interest in a product and it's uses there will be almost always be someone who will invest time and effort into making that product available to the masses. From Adobe to Microsoft to CoreCodec. Money invested in protection doesn't matter, since it has all been made public.

Who again I ask you, ChronoCross, is the activation system supposed to hamper from illegal uses? The legit user who could be a developer or a nonlinear video editor; or is it mean't to hamper the shady programmer who will decompile, edit, and post to the web her/his works?

Sure I agree CC should make money from it's product and a great product it is! But unfortunately, it only takes one success to make a community of illegal copies and users. They endure nothing of the long hours waiting on email support if a machine crashed in the middle of an activation or the discomfort of having to deal with CC and maybe revealing more than you'd like to.

Thats a crying shame for those who paid for the software and then found themselves in a position of "either install it and deal with the restrictive/buggy situation" or "Keep your feature incomplete and buggy software and look elsewhere" situation.

Wouldn't that be a sign to the cracker/hacker that they have won? Now they won't even have to put in even a little effort to crack it. Seems kinda like everyone might as well give everything (DVD's, CD's Software) away for free.

Um, what? The sign's when they cracked windows 98 through XP and Vista weren't enough? Millions probably were spent on those. Minutes if i remember seeing it on the news were spent cracking them. Most within 24 hours. What about adobe? Just checked and CS 2 is there.

Maybe they shouldn't reinvent the wheel but figure out a different method that doesn't involve the same broken case over and over again and accept human nature and the losses that it creates. Keep squeezing your fist harder and harder to increase security and your hand will go numb.:o

Chainmax

6th December 2006, 03:31

I'm curious as to what all you anti-DRM people think companies should do? Should they just not protect their IP at all?

I'm not sure, but like foxyshadis said, it can be implemented in a much more intuitive way. Also, like Foreigner999 says, DRM research is a waste of time and resources, as everything winds up cracked and the only ones that have to suffer through these broken DRM implementations are the paying customers.

MacAddict

6th December 2006, 03:43

MacAddict, you are the customer every company likes, happy with losing your rights. If that's ok for you? Go for it. If not, there are still alternatives like GhostScript for Acrobat and ffdshow for CoreAVC.

I'm not happy about losing my rights in the least. I just focus on the things I can change or control, a companies software is far beyond my control.

@Chainmax

I'm not here to justify any companies actions and I'm not swallowing 'stuff' as you eloquently put it. If I dont like the software then I simply dont give the company my money and use an alternative. Very simple and I certainly dont dwell on it for weeks like some of the peeps in these threads. We all learn lessons in life, sometimes the hard way. DRM is here to stay, how you cope with it is what matters. It's being shoved down out throats on a daily basis, personally I wont pay a penny for it and definitely wont lose any sleep ;-)

Chainmax

6th December 2006, 04:33

Fair enough.

ChronoCross

6th December 2006, 05:25

Simply the past "It's been cracked" doesn't mean they should stop trying to protect their IP with DRM. Granted it will get cracked eventually but the key here is they HAVE to try else they might as well give it to everyone for free.

I don't like restrictive activation like the next person. However I knew I was buying a single PC non-transferable license. It has also been made clear to me when I do upgrade to my next PC I will be able to get a new activation code. Which is why I'm not fretting.

The average user won't be impacted by activation. Most people seem to be complaining are power users.

Manao

6th December 2006, 07:17

Most people seem to be complaining are power usersD9 ( and most board actually ) is a "power" user board, so it's not that significant.
he key here is they HAVE to try else they might as well give it to everyone for freeThey sold CoreAvc 1.1, didn't they ?
However I knew I was buying a single PC non-transferable licenseAnd I won't, ever - or rather, I hope I'll never be forced to. It amounts exactly to buying twice a song, one for my IPod, one on CD, and I sure hope you are against that.

ChronoCross

6th December 2006, 07:29

D9 ( and most board actually ) is a "power" user board, so it's not that significant.
They sold CoreAvc 1.1, didn't they ?
And I won't, ever - or rather, I hope I'll never be forced to. It amounts exactly to buying twice a song, one for my IPod, one on CD, and I sure hope you are against that.

Probably could have sold more if they had actually protected it even in the slightest.

All you gotta do is read. It's easy to avoid such situations if you read the license. It's one of the reasons I haven't bought any itunes music store music. With coreavc I knew I wasn't supposed to install it on 5432 different machines and agreed to it.

You can be anti-DRM and still buy DRM'ed products if your well informed and make a conscious decision on whether the product falls within the guidelines of a reasonable license. Since most people complained after the fact about the single license (it's been in the AUP/TOS since the first purchasable version) I think that I give them less leeway to complain.

Foreigner999

6th December 2006, 08:31

Simply the past "It's been cracked" doesn't mean they should stop trying to protect their IP with DRM. Granted it will get cracked eventually but the key here is they HAVE to try else they might as well give it to everyone for free.

If it's the same type of technology that relies on the same type of principles then yes it is pretty much a given that it will be cracked IMHO. But dont take my opinion lets see how long it takes till it is on P2P.

I don't like restrictive activation like the next person. However I knew I was buying a single PC non-transferable license.

Um, so that means I can run windows 98 and XP and the new Vista beta on a triple boot system and have no problems with my "single PC non-transferable license"? That means I dont have to bother CC with requests to get a new license for these different Operating systems with only one PC with exactly the same hardware? Or is that considered a "power user" these days?

It has also been made clear to me when I do upgrade to my next PC I will be able to get a new activation code. Which is why I'm not fretting.

Thats GREAT NEWS! So where do I go on their website to look that up in an official way? Is that a bullet point type of promise like the gpu support and 4 smp support. Or will we be here in a few months discussing how thats just a personal email to one client and it doesn't manifest for everyone else? I'd like to know how long will CC support my 1.2 version of Coreavc? Will there be a cutoff date in the future where they will not support my request for a new license? See these issues i wouldn't have at all if we were talking about 1.1.0.5.

My name was stapled to my purchase so i sure as hell would not share it with the world and thats fine with me. But now I dont know if by the time version 3 of coreavc comes out will they come up with "core accounts version 6" or something and they will drop support for my maybe-soon-to-be-vaporware purchase.

Which brings me to my last quote...

The average user won't be impacted by activation. Most people seem to be complaining are power users.

Look at my last paragraph and see if that applies only to power user worries.

Inventive Software

6th December 2006, 12:56

Um, so that means I can run windows 98 and XP and the new Vista beta on a triple boot system and have no problems with my "single PC non-transferable license"?
Before CoreCodec removed the license from the installer, it stated the following:
CORECODEC, Inc. (the "Licensor") grants to you
this personal, limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable,
non-assignable license solely to use in a single copy of the
Licensed Works on a single computer for use by a single
concurrent user only, and solely provided that you adhere to
all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

I've also stated many times that they actually have no right to give you GPU support just cause you keep pestering them for it. They specified it to be added at a later date, but because they didn't specify that date, you want it in the next release, just cause they specified it "to be added at a later date".

Read my words VERY carefully.

GPU support is very tricky to implement right, no matter WHAT your granny taught you in high school. Take NVIDIA's PureVideo as a case study. When it was first shown to the consumer world, it was buggy, almost featureless, boasted features that were not there for YEARS, but now they have it right, save for a few bugs here and there.

Lets go over that part again, shall we?

boasted features that were not there for YEARS
Hmm, years. It's been around a year between CoreAVC 1.1.0.0 and CoreAVC 1.2.0.0. Since then, CoreCodec has released several point releases for CoreAVC 1.1 to bump it up to 1.1.0.5, and keep most of it's core userbase happy. Yes, there were major problems with CoreAVC and XP MCE, which hurt a large(ish) minority, but other than that, CoreAVC 1.1.0.5 lived on for many months as the fastest software H.264 decoder around, and to some extent the fastest solution, including GPU assistance. PureVideo is now almost as fast as CoreAVC with the right decoder used, but still has a way to go to justify CoreAVC having GPU support, because if PureVideo can't get it right after years of research, what's to say a small centralised team with limited resources can't?

foxyshadis

6th December 2006, 13:12

So we should be happy that Core espouses "vaporware" because that's a common industry practice? Or just too jaded to care? They were the ones who convinced people to buy it by saying it was right around the corner for months, until they realized it wasn't going to be.

Legally they're not under much obligation to make it happen anytime soon, but that doesn't mean a userbase has no right to feel scammed by what some see as a bait-and-switch.

Anyway, according to the license there should be no problem. It's the same computer - same hard drives, same motherboard, same processor - under all three OSes, unless the license also specified that "computer" was inclusive of the OS. And has anyone tried swapping a motherboard, or even a hard drive, to see what makes the activation bail yet?

Sirber

6th December 2006, 13:18

I read elsewhere someone swapped mobo and CoreAVC didn't work after.

dragongodz

6th December 2006, 13:28

Anyway, according to the license there should be no problem. It's the same computer - same hard drives, same motherboard, same processor - under all three OSes, unless the license also specified that "computer" was inclusive of the OS.
i believe the relevant part in that license would be
single copy of the Licensed Works on a single computer for use by a single concurrent user only
single copy. wouldnt that suggest you can not install it more than once even on the same pc (ie. multi-OS) ?

i have to say thats the most "you cant" license i have ever seen. :eek:

Inventive Software

6th December 2006, 13:53

Which is exactly why CoreCodec removed it from the new installer for 1.2. Betaboy stated that the MPEG-LA restrictions are enough, and a license isn't really necessary.

dragongodz

6th December 2006, 14:32

Betaboy stated that the MPEG-LA restrictions are enough, and a license isn't really necessary.
fair enough but lets get something clear. MPEGLA do a common license and not tailored to each licensee. so any suggestion that the MPEGLA is the reason behind Corecodecs DRM restrictions is plainly rubbish. the proof is in other companies(licensees) such as Elecard, Mainconcept, Intervideo and Cyberlink. none of these use anywhere near the same level of restrictions or protection or whatever you want to call it. how a company chooses to protect its product is up to it.

Sharktooth

6th December 2006, 15:02

Above all things there is common sense.
If you treat your customers as thiefs you deserve to burn down to ash.
It's all a matter of trust. If companies do not trust customers, why customers should trust companies?

3ngel

6th December 2006, 16:20

If you treat your customers as thiefs you deserve to burn down to ash.

They surely will do i think, soon, dust to dust.

And i hope they will not "Arise" ;)

ChronoCross

6th December 2006, 16:29

Foreigner999

6th December 2006, 18:53

Or that every time they don't do exactly what the customer wants they'll throw a shit fit. The customer is generally a whiney little baby who wants everything perfectly the way they want it. Companies don't seem to have any rights, it's always about "consumer rights". Where is the fairness in that? I think that if the consumer can shit on a company whenever they feel like the company should be able to shit back on them.

Yeah...only one problem. Companies dont survive without consumers; but consumers do survive without companies.

Yes I think it should be a take and give situation on both ends of the stick. But CC started the drm scheme before any illegal copies showed up on the net. They didn't just whip out that scheme overnight you know. As of version 1.1.0.5 they stated that they decided it wasn't ready or something to that effect. So it was a work in progress quite a while back.

I thought the old protection scheme of customized binaries was a pretty good one. I didn't want my copy out there and have my account canceled and I dont think anyone with half a brain might. But when it did get cracked well thats just what happens when a software becomes popular.

As for what someone else mentioned about the extremes of protection and the "can't factor" of different companies, some are far more lax allowing users more freedom in the usage of thier products. Take for example Adobe Photoshop CS 3, they will likely allow you to install it on an office and home pc. With CC i can't even install it on more than one OS sitting on the same PC. I'd hate to see where this goes once people get thier hands dirty on virtualization and multi-OS setups. This is not an extreme case! This is likely what power users will be using thier future computers for in say 1.5 to 2 years time. Why not switch between operating systems for different software and keep from having to break your wallet and bank account by staying on only one platform and one set of choices of software for doing chores from work or using your favorite Windows only media player.

Sharktooth

6th December 2006, 21:39

@Sharktooth

The same could be said about the companies. Why should they trust any of their customers when their customers have already said publicly that they will use a pirated copy.

Or that every time they don't do exactly what the customer wants they'll throw a shit fit. The customer is generally a whiney little baby who wants everything perfectly the way they want it. Companies don't seem to have any rights, it's always about "consumer rights". Where is the fairness in that? I think that if the consumer can shit on a company whenever they feel like the company should be able to shit back on them.
There is a rule that should always be respected when you're into business:
- The customer is always right.
... and that's coz you sell something the customers want so customers give you the money you need to survive.
So, shitting on the customers means you will get no money... and you know how it works... no money, no glory.
It has been always like that and it will always be.

ChronoCross

6th December 2006, 23:33

Sometimes the customer is always right gets stretched too frequently to include EVERYTHING. In reality the customer is not always right, often the customer needs to be told what is right. Any business that doesn't stand up to the whims of their customers will not make money either as they will always be giving away free items.

Audionut

7th December 2006, 02:26

when their customers have already said publicly that they will use a pirated copy.

If they are using a pirated copy, then they are not a paying customer.

The only other thing I have to add to this matter is that in my experience the only thing strong protection mechanisms appear to do is make it a pain in the ass for paying customers.

People will always find ways to defeat copy protection. And the other will wait until someone cracks it instead of paying for it.

In the end, the paying customer gets fuc**d around. And perhaps the cracker get a nice challenge.

edit: perhaps this thread could be moved to a different section.

Audionut

7th December 2006, 02:29

Sometimes the customer is always right gets stretched too frequently to include EVERYTHING.

Customers are sheep. They are very rarely correct.

Zag

7th December 2006, 02:51

I just have one question for you, do you honestly think that their business has improved since adding this new feature? Do you really think that more customers are lined up to purchase this product since they introduced this new "feature"? I get the feeling that based on the comments on these threads a lot of the customers that coreavc was hoping to get have run in the opposite direction. I am one them...

The little gain this release had going for it has been wiped out by all this negative controversy, heck I can't even find much of a discussion of how well it is working. No technical discussion, no talk of improvements. Nothing but bad press and that can't be good for business regardless. Simple economics my friend, any business that runs off more customers that it gains will not be in business long.

Foreigner999

7th December 2006, 03:11

I too doubt that their bottom line hasn't been affected.

The only thing I can imagine bringing CC back to the spot light is adding features to their core account system and adding a way for user to buy licenses at a fraction of the cost of the original price if they own a primary license at least.

Say anywhere between 2 to 4 dollars per extra PC/PDA/HTPC. How about a 2$ premium for a license on the same PC but different OS? And 4$ premium for extra PCs coming from the same IP for those of us with home networks? Full price for PC's not in the same location as the primary PC. See I dont think this has to be a one way only deal. This would definetly cure the crisis created by the drm like protection scheme.

I have 2 laptops 2 desktops and one smartphone. This is easier for me to handle than Full price for every single PC and OS. What do you guys/gals think?

Sharktooth

7th December 2006, 14:41

interesting. but still activation should be removed or at least give the user the possibility to:
1) activate by phone
2) deactivate the product for a later reactivation (maybe on another PC) of the same or of a different version of the product (for linux maybe?)
3) self-fix activation problems by logging in into the core-account system and giving some special password or something you get when you get the product
4) receive products update thru an auto-update embedded into the core-account system that will scan and update the installed core products without needing a re-activation

... or as i said... give up with activation!

Romario

7th December 2006, 23:10

You are right, Sharktooth. You are the man!!!

Or else, hackers might try to crack CoreAVC 1.2!

ChronoCross

8th December 2006, 00:34

You are right, Sharktooth. You are the man!!!

Or else, hackers might try to crack CoreAVC 1.2!

I love sheep

Romario

8th December 2006, 00:52

Sheep???

Koti

8th December 2006, 05:53

http://www.sheep101.info/flocking.html
;)

wiak

8th December 2006, 21:30

CoreCodec has not been forced in any way by MPEG LA to use an activation system. Afaik other decoder don't use activation either. CoreCodec chose to implement activation to try to prevent piracy.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=838063#post838063
activation wont prevent piracy, it will encurat it!

and CoreAVC should allow to be installed on upto 4 PC's, just like SMP

foxyshadis

9th December 2006, 08:39

Activation doesn't encourage piracy. A small number of pirates will buy it, a small number of legit lawful owners will crack it just to get rid of the headaches, and a lot more people (legit or not) will just stick with what they have or go to another package, especially if it's free and open source. No crack is in the wild currently, but my guess is that has more to do with no compelling reason to upgrade. A few bugfixes won't compel current pirates to upgrade or attract the attention of cracker teams.

crypto

9th December 2006, 10:03

...and a lot more people (legit or not) will just stick with what they have or go to another package, especially if it's free and open source.

Exactly. This is especially true for the CoreAVC case. ffdshow has gotten better and better and performs now in the core range, with nearly its speed but more precise decoding.

sillKotscha

9th December 2006, 10:51

ffdshow has gotten better and better and performs now in the core range, with nearly its speed but more precise decoding.

not really true... it all depends on the cpu used. On my AthlonXP 2400+ CoreAVC is still the (very!) fastest decoder available...

but I have to admit that ffdshow really is getting closer 'n closer. The current ffdshow devs here at our forum do a fantastic job concerning bug tracking and speed optimizations - all in their spare time and for no charge.

The Core team should really think about a new USP or they will completely loose the race...

KoD

9th December 2006, 13:26

"dev team here" did nothing about h264 decoding speedup in ffdshow. Read teh changelog. You're probably confusing the ffmpeg devs that make all the decoder improvements with the people that merge those changes into ffdshow. Let's give credit where it's due, shall we ? And ffdshow still uses only one core for decoding, not to mention interlaced decoding is a pain, but then it's sometimes a pain in CoreAVC too.

clsid

9th December 2006, 13:42

If CoreCodec would remove the (intentional?) bug in CoreAVC that causes the blockiness on some vids, then the overall performance will drop with about 10%. Estimate based on an experiment that drevil_xxl did with libavcodec code.

sillKotscha

9th December 2006, 13:44

@KoD

I know very well that not ffdshow itself is in charge of those speed ups but it's libraries... and you know very well what I intended to say - don't pervert my words.

fdshow still uses only one core for decoding

"the more badly" for the Core team that ffdshow is already getting that close concerning decoding speed :sly:

not to mention interlaced decoding is a pain

as far as I remember ffdshow gets updated nearly what?... every day?? and what about Core... updated nearly what? twice a year?? :sly:

in other words guess who's first in optimal interlaced decoding

bond

9th December 2006, 13:45

KoD

9th December 2006, 14:02

Sorry, but that's exactly how I understood it. Let's say I often found people that got praise for somebody else's work and it moves me in an unpleasant way.

As for decoder speed improvements, we really need to do some benchmarks and comment on them rather than guessing. Something like Haali's timecodec (http://haali.cs.msu.ru/mkv/timeCodec.exe) could prove useful.

Here's a little sample one could use (torrent file for a 50MB mp4 file): http://a.scarywater.net/triad/[Triad]_5cm_preview.mp4.torrent
It's a h264 720p in mp4 encode of a preview for an animated movie that's planned to appear next year. The preview is publicly available on the official website 5cm (http://5cm.yahoo.co.jp/) but this one was encoded in h264. It's native 720p, which means it was made at 720p, not upconverted or anything similar. Have a go and see how ffdshow and CoreAVC fare.

foxyshadis

10th December 2006, 01:08

I use riverbed (ftp://ftp.ldv.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/dist/test_sequences/1080p/riverbed.yuv) encoded lossless with CABAC and CAVLC to test against. I get:

CABAC (23Mbps):
ffdshow - 16.1 dfps
coreavc 0.4 - 19.1 dfps
coreavc pre-1.0 - 37.3 dfps

CAVLC (26Mbps):
ffdshow - 19.1 dfps
coreavc 0.4 - 22.5 dfps
coreavc 1.0-pre - 44.5 dfps

All are 3 runs averaged, plus one run before. I wouldn't have even listed 0.4 except I ran the test before noticing it was using only one core, tracked it down to using the wrong version - some $#%* software must have put it on there. I'll find out later. (Could have been anything in the 5 months since I last used it, so it's hard to say.) [Edit: It was SUPER. Damn that thing.]

So ffdshow is much better than it was, but for megabitrate 1080p just not up to snuff. An mplayer test would probably give you an fps or two more.

If I can ever get gcc 4.3 to work I'll get to multithreading easy bits of the decoder; until then, only someone intimately familiar with AVC can even touch threading.

Also, h264 support in ffdshow hasn't really changed since the big speedup push a few months back.

clsid

10th December 2006, 01:36

On a single core cpu differences are smaller.

[PSNR]Air.Creditless.OP.[avc][vorbis].mkv:

ffdshow rev664 - 86.2 dfps
coreavc 1.1.0.5 - 111.8 dfps

ffdshow is 23% slower for this file. For other files that I tried its between 20 and 30%.

plonk420

10th December 2006, 01:49

Some people will never appreciate the idea of renting software until the company goes out of business or shuts the servers down, and that's fine.

good point :P i was just about to wonder outloud why legit users would care, since if we're here to post and complain about it, then we obviously will have an internet connection... we all know how overzealous protection schemes hurt the users more than pirates, but i've never had an issue with programs i've actually bought. the only annoying thing about AnyDVD is how often the updates annoy me, even in the middle of a session with my favorite MMOG (back when i played)...

i may have to keep a warez'd copy around alongside my legit version. i haven't even gotten around to loading 1.2 as 1.1 is working perfectly fine for me currently...

was looking for some program i bought a while ago (back in the Voodoo2/3 days) only to find the author's site was loooong gone and not a trace of it around... hopefully this doesn't happen here...

bob0r

10th December 2006, 05:19

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=914385#post914385

Yup, this leaves us with one question:
Where is CoreAVC 1.2.0.1?
Quicker updates was the goal, no?
Bug fixed, release update, good for the people, good for core (they know the bug fixes work or not)

(just hopes this dumb activation process isn't causing a problem with updating)

I am still waiting for BetaBoy's reply:
Does CoreAVC 1.2 still display widescreen video: 4:3, when software deblocking/deinterlacing is enabled.... in DVB Viewer?