CCCP ffdshow discussion

[Episode]

CCCP Project still seems to hate ffdshow-tryouts for some reason :)

http://www.cccp-project.net/smf/index.php?topic=1315.msg8056#msg8056

[haruhiko_yamagata]

CCCP Project still seems to hate ffdshow-tryouts for some reason :)

http://www.cccp-project.net/smf/index.php?topic=1315.msg8056#msg8056
What a deep insult. I wish I hadn't read.
Do they use code from tryouts?
It's serious GPL violation.

[fastplayer]

I'm speechless...
The level of arrogance and disrespect towards the tryouts is just unbelievable... :(

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Well, if CCCP insists to use old outdated software and ignore all the great work done here, it's their own problem. Isn't it?

Maybe you should put a few word about "CCCP" on the ffdshow-tryouts homepage.
Nothing insulting, just some facts to avoid confusion for new useres...

BTW: ffdshow.sourceforge.net is still online and show's the latest update for October 2005.
Shouldn't there be a warning like this at least:
"This site is not upated any more, please go to ffdshow-tryouts for up-to-date info"
Anyway, a redirect to ffdshow-tryout.sf.net would be the best solution.

Well, I know that Milan disappeared, but can't you speak to the SF admins to add a warning/redirect?

[clsid]

Yes, they use a subset of the changes made by tryouts. And they are currently indeed violating GPL by not publishing the source code that they use.

They have all right to be conservative in the changes. But if they claim that tryouts is full of bugs, it would be nice of them to back up that claim and submit a few bugreports.

[Episode]

Actually, I think that you guys should try to takeover the original ffdshow project since it isn't active anymore.

http://sourceforge.net/docs/D01/en/#takeover

[_xxl]

Maybe If we could talk to Milan...
@CCCP what's wrong with the tryouts?
Exactly.Name "40" bugs that you can reproduce from latest SVN.
Can you?!

[Bathrone]

Who cares what their opinions are. I certainly dont. As one of the devs said here - its about facts not opinions.

I for one am very thankful for the tryouts fork and for the devs keeping it up to date with ffmpeg.

I have a minor issue with the different builds having different default settings, which seems to sometimes gets fixed others not.

I also dont understand why some already existing MS Windows codecs are overwritten with open source codecs but I acknowledge I can change the default install to only install what I want.

Thanks for all the work guys - I keep testing with regular builds but frankly I dont often find any bugs :)

[_xxl]

http://www.cccp-project.net/smf/index.php?topic=1315.msg8056#msg8056
Because our build is stable.
Is you build stable?
BTW ffdshow has no real multithreading.It has limited so called "queuing" as it is named, which is only used for certain filters, certain players, and certain renderers. There is no multithreaded decoding whatsoever in ffdshow.
False.
Libavcodec MPEG2/1 decoders are multithreaded.
Libavcodec MPEG4/2/1 encoders, xvidcore 1.2 and x264 rev 622 are multithreaded.
If you could, please show me how the CCCP ffdshow build is "buggy" and "old" and how ffdshow-tryouts is clearly superior to it. What you listed above though seems mostly ignorant talk, and somehow who isn't well apprised of the situation. FFdshow-tryouts is slowly making leeway into something I would consider more stable, but not yet. There is hardly any reason whatsoever at current to use ffdshow-tryouts, unless we want to deal with a whole new host of bugs.
What bugs?Please tell us.
You're missing one important thing. We try to provide a stable solution. By quickly looking at that list all I can say is that yes, half of those bugs exist in cccp but that's also why we include vsfilter and the mpvdecoder and several other things. Of what's left we don't care much about the encoding related ones (for obvious reasons) and the rest we failed to reproduce (possibly also caused by tryout).
Show the source code of you stable solution!
This issue was raised by others, not us. I don't see anyone malevolently slurring ffdshow-tryouts here. If you cry every time you hear opinions you don't like, then don't bother asking. I didn't say ffdshow-tryouts was buggy, however you can find many bugs which are not found in Milan's SVN. Am I going to do all the work for you just so we can continue to not use ffdshow-tryouts with a clear mind? No. Thats your issue we aren't using ffdshow-tryouts, not ours.

What bugs have been added?
Where can I download the modified ffdshow source code that CCCP uses?
Could you post a list of bugs that are present in tryouts but not in the cccp build?
I can't find the source code.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

http://sourceforge.net/docs/D01/en/#takeover

Sounds like that's exactly what is needed here :)

[fastplayer]

I also dont understand why some already existing MS Windows codecs are overwritten with open source codecs but I acknowledge I can change the default install to only install what I want.
ffdshow has a higher merit so it overrides your current codec(s). You can always disable single ffdshow codecs after installation in ffdshow's decoder configuration dialog.

[_xxl]

@CCCP
How many people use your codec?
Can they say that it is stable?
Let's ask them?
If I could find them!:confused:

[clsid]

I also dont understand why some already existing MS Windows codecs are overwritten with open source codecs but I acknowledge I can change the default install to only install what I want.ffdshow does not take over decoding of Windows Media unless you specifically enable it yourself. I recommend to just use the Microsoft codecs.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I also dont understand why some already existing MS Windows codecs are overwritten with open source codecs

It's always a benefit to be able to choose between a proprietary codec and an OpenSource alternative!
I (personally) will always go with the OpenSource implementation when possible...

[_xxl]

That's the stable solution provided by CCCP.
Old and incomplete versions of ffdshow,libavcodec and libmplayer.
Half of ffdshow's libs are missing.
Crash in subtitles, crash in wme and more...crashes.
What exactly have you fixed?
http://img155.imagevenue.com/loc45/th_63801_Capture1_122_45lo.jpg (http://img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63801_Capture1_122_45lo.jpg)http://img45.imagevenue.com/loc50/th_63805_Capture2_122_50lo.jpg (http://img45.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63805_Capture2_122_50lo.jpg)http://img16.imagevenue.com/loc24/th_63816_Capture3_122_24lo.jpg (http://img16.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63816_Capture3_122_24lo.jpg)http://img22.imagevenue.com/loc94/th_63822_Capture4_122_94lo.jpg (http://img22.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63822_Capture4_122_94lo.jpg)
http://img106.imagevenue.com/loc51/th_63827_Capture5_122_51lo.jpg (http://img106.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63827_Capture5_122_51lo.jpg)

[clsid]

CCCP doesn't give user support for encoding, so they don't care about that part of their build of ffdshow being buggy. Their pack is intended for playback only.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

CCCP doesn't give user support for encoding, so they don't care about that part of their build of ffdshow being buggy. Their pack is intended for playback only.

Even if they think that they don't need the encoding part, some users still might want to use it. Such users will run into trouble and think ffdshow is buggy. It's just stupid to keep code that is known to be broken, especially when it already has been fixed! Maybe they should start their own ffdshow fork, remove everything they consider "unnecessary" and call it something different(!) than "ffdshow" to make clear they are not continuing the original ffdshow. Propagating an old outdated version of ffdshow which has known bugs (fixed in current version!) won't help anybody :rolleyes:

[clsid]

I agree. But they obviously don't.

But until they publish their full source, we can now consider CCCP a rule 6 violation :P

[LoRd_MuldeR]

What about overtaking the original ffdshow site?
Maybe CCCP will rethink their opinion when the outdated version on the "official" ffdshow size is finally replaced with the up-to-date version from ffdshow-tryouts.
Since the old site is obviously abandoned, ffdshow-tryouts is obviously doing great work in continuing the project and Milan obviously isn't willing (or able) to react, I'm pretty sure the SF admins will agree...

[foxyshadis]

Even if they think that they don't need the encoding part, some users still might want to use it. Such users will run into trouble and think ffdshow is buggy. It's just stupid to keep code that is known to be broken, especially when it already has been fixed! Maybe they should start their own ffdshow fork, remove everything they consider "unnecessary" and call it something different(!) than "ffdshow" to make clear they are not continuing the original ffdshow. Propagating an old outdated version of ffdshow which has known bugs (fixed in current version!) won't help anybody :rolleyes:

They already do, it's their own package. The only stability they care about is that it plays divx/xvid/avc fansubs with mp3/vorbis/aac in mkv/ogm/avi/mp4 with softsubs using vsfilter, and frankly, they never needed ffdshow in the first place for such a limited set of requirements. The only thing I would suggest they do is rename their filter, remove vfw entirely, and keep it from interfering with the full ffdshow. The two can coexist peacefully with minor GUID and path changes.

It may well be that they formed their opinions based on the initial queuing patches and the turmoil of the first few weeks of tryouts, which were a bit of a mess of course, but that has long since been straightened out. Still, their choice.

Taking over the original ffdshow project has been discussed before, but at first it was hoped that milan would return. I don't have much opinion on it, but it would be a good idea to at least have the old project moved to an archive so people aren't getting such buggy old versions.
What about overtaking the original ffdshow site?
Maybe CCCP will rethink their opinion when the outdated version on the "official" ffdshow size is finally replaced with the up-to-date version from ffdshow-tryouts.

The founder's opinion is made up, simply performing a simple SF procedure won't change it.

[_xxl]

They already do, it's their own package. The only stability they care about is that it plays divx/xvid/avc fansubs with mp3/vorbis/aac in mkv/ogm/avi/mp4 with softsubs using vsfilter, and frankly, they never needed ffdshow in the first place for such a limited set of requirements. The only thing I would suggest they do is rename their filter, remove vfw entirely, and keep it from interfering with the full ffdshow.
They can use xvid decoder.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Taking over the original ffdshow project has been discussed before, but at first it was hoped that milan would return. I don't have much opinion on it, but it would be a good idea to at least have the old project moved to an archive so people aren't getting such buggy old versions.

I'd suggest to put a "start" page in front of the current Tikiwiki page. Just put a short notice there, that the original site isn't updated any more (or at least that it is currently outdated) and that ffdshow-tryouts took over the development. Below two links: On to "historical" ffdshow site and one to ffdshow-tryout project site. Only somebody would need FTP access to upload...


The only thing I would suggest they do is rename their filter, remove vfw entirely, and keep it from interfering with the full ffdshow. The two can coexist peacefully with minor GUID and path changes.

:goodpost:

[Mentar]

With all due respect, aren't you guys _completely_ overreacting here? If you read through the thread carefully, you can see that noone is criticizing the work on tryouts at all, but for the whole purpose of CCCP, which is to present a stable and reliable PLAYBACK PACK, it is not suited too well. Here, tryouts is simply too cutting-edge, and in many cases simply too alpha for main distribution.

Many packages of newer ffdshow builds are made available as "beta" version. They are then thoroughly tested, not just by 1-2 dozen peers, but by a few HUNDRED beta-testers. If a beta pack has proven itself to be without real issues after 1-2 months, it's released as the next "stable" version. Simply because for the PURPOSES of the pack - reliable playback particularly of anime encodes - it has proven to be good. Yes, it will most likely be slower than the cutting-edge releases, and yes, it might have 1-2 hidden obscure bugs which MIGHT be fixed in some tryouts, but it almost certainly will NOT have any new bugs introduced in new code, and it will NOT break for 99.9% of the users. _That_ is the meaning of "stability" which was used here.

Instead you're acting as if the CCCP folks had shat on the grave of your mothers. Instead, it's simply offering a specialized subset of ffdshow with a very logical task, and it comes with alot of empirical testing and with a channel which helps newbies resolve their playback problems. If they choose to stay with the Milan builds and with only handpicked patches, then why not?

*shakes head in bewilderment*

drevil_xxl: You can't be too familiar with the pack, otherwise you'd have realized that subtitles are NOT handled by ffdshow, but by the included vsfilter. Also, CCCP is to be used with the included mpc or zoomplayer. It doesn't claim to be the best ffdshow build, it's only a SUBSET of select and thoroughly tested ffdshow COMPONENTS which are required for playback and playback only.

[_xxl]

You can't be too familiar with the pack, otherwise you'd have realized that subtitles are NOT handled by ffdshow, but by the included vsfilter.
Yes I know, but CCCP ffdshow is crashing if subtitles are enabled.That's all.
Is DirectVobSub 2.37 stable?

[Mentar]

Yes I know, but CCCP ffdshow is crashing if subtitles are enabled.That's all.
Is DirectVobSub 2.37 stable?

If you ask me if it's impossible to break: No. But it's definitely the best option for full-feature subtitle rendering. And in the given environment and the given task, it's doing its job perfectly fine.

Also, it's impossible without unreasonable extra effort to ensure that either naive n00bs or malicious experts intentionally trying to break playback via ffdshow config window can't mess things up. I could easily pick ffdshow tryouts and turn it into something completely unusable with less than 10 clicks either. The idea of CCCP is to provide a setup which has been verified to work for the vast majority of anime fans. Technophile cutting-edge fans are totally invited to ride the ffdshow-tryouts wave instead. Most anime fans certainly prefer simplicity and stability over that.

[_xxl]

I could easily pick ffdshow tryouts and turn it into something completely unusable with less than 10 clicks either.
Please do it.

[Mentar]

Please do it.

:rolleyes:

Codecs --> deactivate

or

Resizing --> Soft resize to 1280x1024

or or or... dozens of possibilities.

Yes, you're not supposed to do that. Neither are you supposed to turn on ffdshow subtitling when this is handled by a different component.

I seriously can't understand this irrational hostility displayed in this thread. Is it a matter of hurt pride? Why don't you just leave the CCCP guys in peace?

[clsid]

If you read through the thread carefully, you can see that noone is criticizing the work on tryouts at all, but for the whole purpose of CCCP, which is to present a stable and reliable PLAYBACK PACK, it is not suited too well. Here, tryouts is simply too cutting-edge, and in many cases simply too alpha for main distribution.I would say that claiming that tryouts is full of bugs is a form of criticism. And I disagree that tryouts is cutting edge. Besides support for some additional video formats, the amount of new features is pretty small.

Many packages of newer ffdshow builds are made available as "beta" version. They are then thoroughly tested, not just by 1-2 dozen peers, but by a few HUNDRED beta-testers. If a beta pack has proven itself to be without real issues after 1-2 months, it's released as the next "stable" version. Simply because for the PURPOSES of the pack - reliable playback particularly of anime encodes - it has proven to be good. Yes, it will most likely be slower than the cutting-edge releases, and yes, it might have 1-2 hidden obscure bugs which MIGHT be fixed in some tryouts, but it almost certainly will NOT have any new bugs introduced in new code, and it will NOT break for 99.9% of the users. _That_ is the meaning of "stability" which was used here.Sounds great in theory. But in practice your guys are directing lots of users to your beta builds because they are having troubles with the latest final. I don't say it shouldn't be tested properly. But there should be a good balance between bugs fixed versus possible new bugs.

Instead you're acting as if the CCCP folks had shat on the grave of your mothers. Instead, it's simply offering a specialized subset of ffdshow with a very logical task, and it comes with alot of empirical testing and with a channel which helps newbies resolve their playback problems. If they choose to stay with the Milan builds and with only handpicked patches, then why not?CCCP has indeed all right to do that. We are upset because CCCP currently violates GPL (Myrsloik has said that he will release a source pack for their next final). Also because they say tryouts is 'unworthy', without giving any specifics about why they have that opinion. If tryouts is buggy, it would be helpful if they would report those bugs.

Also, it's impossible without unreasonable extra effort to ensure that either naive n00bs or malicious experts intentionally trying to break playback via ffdshow config window can't mess things up. I could easily pick ffdshow tryouts and turn it into something completely unusable with less than 10 clicks either. The idea of CCCP is to provide a setup which has been verified to work for the vast majority of anime fans. Technophile cutting-edge fans are totally invited to ride the ffdshow-tryouts wave instead. Most anime fans certainly prefer simplicity and stability over that.The same applies to the build that CCCP uses. So this argument is just pointless propaganda.

[Nicholi]

The majority of the problems we had when looking into the ffdshow-tryout fork were in the early days. Yes many problems may have been ironed out but still there was little reason to switch, as there is now. There was no reason to cause more headache at the time simply because there was little improvement for the larger drawback of whole new amounts of yet to be found (and fixed) bugs. We saw a great touting of ffdshow-tryouts being "what you should use or you are an idiot" then too. Which is exactly the same demeanor that is used now. I personally still see little reason to use it over what we have because there are no vast improvements. I see ideas and requests for real development ignored daily. The only things being done are trying to keep up with FFMPEG revisions, as well as fix new and old bugs. I'd rather just stay with the old bugs and fix them.

It is too bad everyone here feels that is not enough for them, but you are just going to have to deal with the reasons given. You can criticize the reasons as much as you want afterwards and label them shortsighted, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, whatever makes you feel better. We are not on a flaming ad campaign to denigrate ffdshow-tryouts. We simply do not at this time plan to distribute it with the CCCP. Yes, that would mean at the same time we are not recognizing ffdshow-tryouts as the new source for ffdshow development. However, what do you really care if one pack does or does not use ffdshow-tryouts? Just us fools and idiots here, which seems to be the general opinion.

If GPL is everyone's problem you will soon see a published compressed package with the patches we apply. Don't be surprised when you see them because I am quite sure none of you will do more then glance at them then move on. Nothing inside is going to benefit the ffdshow-tryouts project, as has been stated we use Milan's SVN with a few fixes/improvements. We don't have an SVN of the ffdshow src because we are not developing it, there is no need.

For anyone who thinks we should modify the source more so that ffdshow and ffdshow-tryouts can co-exist, I'm not quite sure where this idea came from. Tryouts is the fork, we are compiling from the original source. I believe if anything tryouts is what should in fact be modified to coexist with Milan's original code. We will not be modifying the GUIDs, dshow priority, or anything else though, I'm sorry again. I suppose in the end you will just have to flame us into the ground for not using ffdshow-tryouts.

[Mentar]

I would say that claiming that tryouts is full of bugs is a form of criticism. And I disagree that tryouts is cutting edge. Besides support for some additional video formats, the amount of new features is pretty small.

First of all, if you read the thread carefully, you will notice that the "buggy" bashing was initiated _against_ CCCP, claiming that CCCP was "too old and buggy". To which CCCP folks replied that tryouts introduced alot of new problems which didn't exist in Milan's build. Which is a fact which you'll hardly want to contest, right?

Personally, I'm not too fond with the tone on both sides, but alas. However, I can personally attest that in most of the "newest" builds which incorporate new tryouts stuff certain issues tend to surface during beta testing which are reason not to use them for the so-called "stable" release. Whether or not you call this "cutting-edge" or not, they're just not ready for mass rollout yet, in the opinion of the CCCP maintainers. And this is THEIR perogative to decide for THEIR pack.

Sounds great in theory. But in practice your guys are directing lots of users to your beta builds because they are having troubles with the latest final. I don't say it shouldn't be tested properly. But there should be a good balance between bugs fixed versus possible new bugs.

To clarify the "you guys" first: I'm part of the CCCP staff in the meaning that I help people fix their playback issues. I'm not part of the developers/testers, therefore speak about them in the "they" form. My personal opinions are mine and don't reflect theirs, please let's keep this seperate.

And factually, the cases in which we refer anyone to fix a problem in the last "stable" release by trying a new beta are in fact very rare, except if it's about CPU shortage cases where the (faster) new builds might help. The stable releases ARE fairly stable in general. And they're most certainly more stable than the betas (of course).

CCCP has indeed all right to do that. We are upset because CCCP violates GPL. Also because they say tryouts is 'unworthy', without giving any specifics about why they have that opinion. If tryouts is buggy, it would be helpful if they would report those bugs.

I don't think that this is a fair comment. First of all, Myrsloik has offered sources for the stable builds to anyone asking, so it's a bit outlandish to talk about "GPL violations". No, I think the real problem several people in here have is not that there wasn't an immediate link to a tarball, but rather that CCCP dared not to pay respect to their "tryouts" line. Hurt pride and violated feeling of entitlement is what _I_ believe to be the cause of this ballyhoo here, not an irrelevant legalese technicality.

Also, noone but you used the word "unworthy". Also, it's not like the work on tryouts wasn't appreciated, it's simply that CCCP preferred to incorporate those parts they deemed relevant as single patches instead of swallowing the full ball. In OSS development, this is a perfectly natural approach. Are you going to be happy when the tarball is directly linked? Will this simple act then turn this heinous "GPL violation" in something completely legit and stop this (IMHO childish) tempest in a teapot?

The same applies to the build that CCCP uses. So this argument is just pointless propaganda.

Of course it applies to both builds. That was actually my whole point. It was a reply to drevil_xxl, who (again) cast the first stone against CCCP.

[check]

ho ho ho, the CCCP thing has really started up a hornet's nest! Anyway, just so I can set all the picture frames straight after the earthquake of sorts, I just want to say you shouldn't take Nicholi's insults very seriously. A happy forum post has never been born from the keyboard of his computer, and worrying about one particular random's insults over the combined weight of those who hate ffdshow in general is probably not a good use of your time ;)

[_xxl]

Of course it applies to both builds. That was actually my whole point. It was a reply to drevil_xxl, who (again) cast the first stone against CCCP.
False.
I didn't wrote that in the first place:
http://www.cccp-project.net/smf/index.php?topic=1315.msg8056#msg8056
Codecs --> deactivate
or
Resizing --> Soft resize to 1280x1024
or or or... dozens of possibilities.
Please tell us what dozens of possibilities are you talking about?Can you name them?All?
I seriously can't understand this irrational hostility displayed in this thread. Is it a matter of hurt pride? Why don't you just leave the CCCP guys in peace?
Why do you use "STABLE" solution?Is your ffdshow really stable?You are confusing new users.
Yes they fixed a few small typos and almost completely inconsequential bugs. We have always followed the ffdshow-tryout SVN logs and implemented anything we could recreate ourselves and found to be important.
False again.
Stop insulting us!
On most CPUs, it will slow down the playback of normal-fps anime encodes to unusable levels.
Provide video samples!
And provide the source code!

[madshi]

My 2 cents: CCCP has the right to not use tryouts and if they think that's the way to go then that's totally ok and their own choice. However, the thread in the CCCP forum does sound to me (and I've neither used CCCP nor tryouts yet) as if CCCP would make tryouts a bit bad.

So my request to the CCCP guys is: You seem to have found new bugs in tryouts. That's great! Please report them, so they can get fixed! Still you don't need to use tryouts, of course. But helping tryouts to fix the bugs (you know about) is in everybody's best interest. Because who knows, maybe in the long run you might be interested to use tryouts, too.

[Mentar]

I've got to say that I begin to understand Nicholi's position and his running-out patience. This is likely going to be my final contribution to this thread.

False.
I didn't wrote that:

I never said that you wrote THAT. I was referring to your sneery comments about CCCP-build instabilities, outdatedness and whatnot. Note #359 in this thread, and several others. Both on the CCCP board and on this board, it's been "tryout" fanatics who started some unpleasant name-calling and badmouthing. And the funniest thing is that you don't even seem to recognize this, and instead fume over the sheer insolence of CCCP to anchor their builds on Milan's instead of yours.

Please tell us what dozens of possibilities are you talking about?Can you name them?All?

I could easily start doing so (2 examples were already given), but I won't. There's no point in proving that trying to use software in ways they are not INTENDED to be used can lead to problems. This is self-evident.

Why do you use "STABLE" solution?Is your ffdshow really stable?You are confusing new users.

Why would that be? CCCP with the additional technical support has proven itself over the years to be a very reliable playback solution. Also, the subset build ffdshow is only one of several components. For its purpose (anime playback) it has an excellent track record. That's why for playback packs it's become the de-facto standard in anime circles.

It would be news to me that CCCP claimed to be the "reference" ffdshow build or the "latest" ffdshow build or even the "most stable" ffdshow build. It is simply a build with a subset of patches which the CCCP staff deems most suited for the package's goal. Reasons for this decision have been given, and to me they sound very logical. If you don't like their decision, that's just TOO BAD. Have a hanky.

So please feel free to relase a pack of your own, which is using the latest and best and most stable and awesome in ffdshow tryouts. I doubt that anyone from CCCP will come over and start flaming you. And it would be nice if you'd extend the same courtesy to them in return.

As for the rest, and this is just my personal opinion as ME, not representative for anything CCCP: IMHO you have a valid point that by the letter of the word CCCP should offer a source package aswell. Myrsloik has never refused to do so and I expect him to put one up soon. Construing an ugly "GPL licence violation" out of this is way out of proportion. Once the source package is up, I hope that this total straw man issue is settled.

And - sorry to say so - in my most humble opinion you guys definitely need a reality and attitude check. "You MAY report bugs"... "Before I can act cozy with you... (to an offer to help write documentation)"... "Remove the insulting words in your forum"...

All my appreciation for anyone who works on ffdshow development notwithstanding - Just who do you guys think you are? YOU are the ones who want something from CCCP - namely to use YOUR builds. Not vice versa. If they don't want to do that, grow up and learn to LIVE WITH IT. Make and distribute (and support) your own better pack if you can't bear the insult that your ingenuity isn't properly worshipped. Or - what would be the more mature reaction - everybody chill down and return to a less heated and more reasonable way of cooperation instead of insisting on these typical fork-flamewars.

Just my 0.016 Euro.

[_xxl]

All my appreciation for anyone who works on ffdshow development notwithstanding - Just who do you guys think you are? YOU are the ones who want something from CCCP - namely to use YOUR builds.
I don't want something from CCCP.You may use your ffdshow as long you want to.People will decide who's right and who's wrong.I'll ask them.Subject: Closed.

[clsid]

I personally still see little reason to use it over what we have because there are no vast improvements. I see ideas and requests for real development ignored daily. The only things being done are trying to keep up with FFMPEG revisions, as well as fix new and old bugs.We have never said that CCCP should use tryouts. The discussion here started only after seeing a topic on the CCCP forums about the tryouts in which the tryouts were labelled as buggy and unstable. We think that tryouts works reasonably well so we are very interested in why you think it is buggy or unstable. However, any specific example has yet to be given. Contrary to what you seem to think the tryouts main purpose is to fix the bugs found in the latest official ffdshow source, not to do any groundbreaking new stuff. The 'no real development' is thus an irrelevant argument to this discussion.

First of all, if you read the thread carefully, you will notice that the "buggy" bashing was initiated _against_ CCCP, claiming that CCCP was "too old and buggy". To which CCCP folks replied that tryouts introduced alot of new problems which didn't exist in Milan's build. Which is a fact which you'll hardly want to contest, right?The discussion in this topic was a response on a topic on the CCCP forums. Not the other way around. At least one bug (MBAFF) has been pointed out to CCCP. Saying that the CCCP build is buggy was certainly exaggerated. Please give that huge list of bugs that have been added in tryouts. Or are we talking about potential, yet to be found bugs that possible may not even exist?

Also, noone but you used the word "unworthy". Also, it's not like the work on tryouts wasn't appreciated, it's simply that CCCP preferred to incorporate those parts they deemed relevant as single patches instead of swallowing the full ball. In OSS development, this is a perfectly natural approach. Are you going to be happy when the tarball is directly linked? Will this simple act then turn this heinous "GPL violation" in something completely legit and stop this (IMHO childish) tempest in a teapot?My usage of 'unworthy' wasn't a direct quote, but the feeling that I got. Not in the sense that I am disappointed that CCCP doesn't use tryouts. I don't care at all about that. Again, I'll repeat, we don't care about what CCCP uses. It is the CCCP opinion that tryouts in general is a 'piece of shit' (again no quote), without giving any constructive criticism or examples, that started this whole discussion.

Just looking at your first post:
ffdshow raw filter doesn't work in ZoomPlayer. (reported by midiboy)
This is a ZP 'feature', called smartplay. It seems to remove any raw processing filters, and also includes a blacklist where you can add evil filters (morgan, antifreeze, et al). Disabling it lets everything work as normal.I already suspected this to be a user error, as it worked ok for me in ZP. Thanks for the info.

re: documentation. I'd be happy to write some of the ffdshow documentation, where does it belong? I've written a fair amount of the megui documentation, so I know what I'm getting in to.Finally something constructive in this discussion. Good docs is something that ffdshow, with its huge amount of options, really needs. :cool:

[_xxl]

http://i9.tinypic.com/33yompy.jpg
Date (UTC) Downloads Bytes Served
16 Feb 2007 * 2,231 8.9 GB
15 Feb 2007 2,712 10.1 GB
14 Feb 2007 2,962 11.1 GB
13 Feb 2007 3,511 13.1 GB
12 Feb 2007 3,864 14.5 GB
11 Feb 2007 4,883 18.6 GB
10 Feb 2007 3,750 14.2 GB
Total 23,913 90.8 GB
23913 downloads in 7 days.

[Nicholi]

We have never said that CCCP should use tryouts. The discussion here started only after seeing a topic on the CCCP forums about the tryouts in which the tryouts were labelled as buggy and unstable. We think that tryouts works reasonably well so we are very interested in why you think it is buggy or unstable. However, any specific example has yet to be given. Contrary to what you seem to think the tryouts main purpose is to fix the bugs found in the latest official ffdshow source, not to do any groundbreaking new stuff. The 'no real development' is thus an irrelevant argument to this discussion.It seems you didn't miss how the flaming started in that thread, you just like to ignore things. The "discussion" there started after someone specifically said "It's not the point, what is more important is CCCP's ffdshow is too old and buggy." Which of course concluded in flaming comments. You seem to recognize this is an obvious overstatement of the CCCP (and Milan's original work on ffdshow), but did nothing at all as an obvious figurehead (being one of the developers of ffdshow-tryouts) to simply post "hey cool off, its not important what they say my little lemmings. Let us continue to work on our glorious project until it becomes likened unto a paradise where no mean things can be said about it :)."

No, rather this inane conversation was continued to flaming comments here as well. For what, to see who can go on the longest? Well its good to know nothing major is happening in ffdshow-tryouts, even less reason to use it. I personally don't care to take the time to locate and find bugs to be fixed in it. Why? Because I don't see it as a valuable investment of my time. The same reason I don't see any reason to include it into the CCCP. I'm not sure how many more times this can be said. We are not focusing on positive feedback, locating bugs, giving perfect reasoning simply because we don't really care to use it at all. Though I have stated many times we may one day use it, but let us be better idiots and ignore that part of my post as well. Respond to the other pieces for no reason whatsoever because this conversation will surely lead to something positive, amirite? Perhaps you are getting the drift of my posts now. If we find any major bug within the original source and it seems to be present within ffdshow-tryouts as well, we will of course report it. I actually reported quite a few in the older days, and then contacted haruhiko who fixed a few of them. But no, I am not going to go on a bug hunt for you in ffdshow-tryouts simply because you do not like it when someone says something negative and you can't work off that at all. As I said, if you want to take our reasons and comments as baseless idiotic sentiments then do so. Or needlessly reply and ask for reasons yet again!

If you wanted constructive criticism, don't expect it. I'm sorry you read things on another forum you didn't like. There are probably dozens more and other conversations you will never know about containing the same negative feedback. Are you going to go locate each of those people just to tell them "I believe you should engage in more constructive feedback of our project in order to make it better." Next time I'll work on policing the internets better so the negative comments don't make it to you. If I had come here to doom9 and specifically out of the blue posted "ffdshow-tryouts is the buggiest pos, don't download it ever" I would expect such answers requiring proper feedback and would most likely suffer the consequences of some moderation as well. But it didn't happen that way, and for some reason the "discussion" flowed here to more pointless posts. But lets see how many more tireless pages we can waste on such a stupid conversation.

As of the replies I've seen here, and the usual demeanor, I see even less reason to bother helping out. Good job tryout lemmings, we salute you n_n. I look forward to your absurd posts about the CCCP and how no one should use it.

[Episode]

@Nicholi, please read forum rule #4 before you write stuff like that on doom9 forums. You can do whatever you like on your own forums, but please try to respect the rules on other forums.

Thanks.

[HeadBangeR77]

As of the replies I've seen here, and the usual demeanor*, I see even less reason to bother helping out. Good job tryout lemmings, we salute you n_n. I look forward to your absurd posts about the CCCP and how no one should use it.
I don't like this tone - there's a nice Italian word to describe what you're doing here, namely "buffonata". So I will consider you a "buffone" from now on, and ignore your posts, since this is a development thread, and I drop by to read about new builds, not such things as above.

[_xxl]

Maybe this situation should be reported to admins.

[clsid]

@Nicholi

It seems you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you. I don't want you to go on a bug hunt for tryout specific bugs. I was under the impression that you had already found bugs, that are currently not yet fixed or known by us. That is what I asked for.

[_xxl]

What did they provide until now?
Not one useful bug report.
No source code for that build.
No solution to this situation.

[netwolf]

Sorry, but couldn't you discuss this issue in a separate thread?

[foxyshadis]

All discussion of CCCP has been moved here. Please keep it civil. I have a very high tolerance for flaming so I personally don't care, but it is against forum rules.

I do not see CCCP as a competitor, a problem, or anything like that, simply as a closely related branch. I would prefer that there not be hostiliy and Nicholi's comments be taken in stride. Check is correct, his path is littered with the ruined battlefields of many wars. ;) If we don't actually offer them anything they feel they need, that's their perogative, as long as it's kept clear what the real reason is. Some of the anger shown to CCCP here originates in some comments made over the last few months that I think got taken way too seriously. I can fully understand that there isn't a lot of love in return when drevil claims in return that no, CCCP is the buggy, unstable one, and thus it gets out of control.

I simply wish to keep the projects separate, thus my suggestion that theirs be renamed (because although they include the 'full' ffdshow they only warrant that a very limited, stripped down version actually functions properly in all circumstances, primarily the decoding capabilities). If not, I would rather ours be renamed so that ours cannot be overwritten by someone installing CCCP, then wondering why their satellite stream, or their DV encoding, no longer works.

With all due respect, aren't you guys _completely_ overreacting here? If you read through the thread carefully, you can see that noone is criticizing the work on tryouts at all, but for the whole purpose of CCCP, which is to present a stable and reliable PLAYBACK PACK, it is not suited too well. Here, tryouts is simply too cutting-edge, and in many cases simply too alpha for main distribution.
We know that, and for that reason we don't release nightlies as betas - until the recent file reorganization, nightlies and the beta were clearly split. We try to do a similar amount of testing as CCCP, which is unfortunately why more 'stable' versions are quite rare.

It is however possible to say that some nightlies are more 'semi-stable' than others - usually there are bursts of new additions, followed by a few days of testing and fixing if necessary. It would be nice if these were highlighted better. If desired I can go through the SVN and highlight certain builds of this nature.

Also stated is that multiple feature requests are ignored. Unfortunately, the main request we recieve is decoder multithreading - something that only the ffmpeg developers are truly able to do, the expertise isn't here - and gui cleanup, which is not simple at all but is not forgotten. We need a good designer/usability expert. ;_;

[Nicholi]

@clsid
I responded in haste and maybe too harshly. When me and many others were looking into ffdshow-tryouts it was as I have said, quite awhile ago. No one was writing anything down or planned to make a concise report of what we found since the results were becoming incredibly displeasing. I don't believe anyone here has a buglist, nor is going to compile one. I can't speak for everyone but I'm quite sure this is the general answer. Unless someone goes out to confirm things again, such a list of bugs does not exist. We did not take tally for reasons to not use ffdshow-tryouts in order to report them and wait for them to be fixed. The number of problems was growing too large to bother, especially considering at the time we had a perfectly normal ffdshow build to patch and work with. We simply saw the work done, saw the results, and had a general displeasure with the outcome. There was another specific individual involved as well working on tryouts that caused trouble in the #cccp channel, only increasing the idea that such a change is probably not going to lead to anything useful. Although that person does not seem to be around any longer.

@No one in particular
If this is going to be turned into a "who can prove what they said argument" you can never prove ffdshow-tryouts has no bugs, as no software is perfect, and I don't see a particular reason to raise three pages of ranting because someone had a negative opinion about the software and said it has "bugs" (which isn't untrue). Of course you can rant on about how you "believe" the remaining bugs are of only minor consequence and that you "believe" all the major problems have been resolved. I really don't understand how this turned into something so important, especially considering nothing was originally said on Doom9 at all. Unless you really do deeply care about what we think, seemed the wrong way to go about it in my opinion.

@foxyshadis
Yes I am evil and responded with mean things, it is my flaw :(. To all the things that may have offended anyone in particular, I take them back if you would let me. I do hope ffdshow-tryouts does turn out to be a great project one day and that we will eventually take part too. I am not so ignorant to miss the fact that ffdshow is going nowhere and ffdshow-tryouts does have individuals doing their best to make it better. Just not right now for us, tis a difference of opinion.

[pandy]

@all seems that this discussion is hopeless, CCCP is one of many codecs pack, boys from CCCP doing some small, cosmetic fixes, putting together some software, create installer pack and nothing more. Some people prefer nimo's codec pack, some people prefer CCCP, some people other codecs pack...
CCCP is a typical end user solution and this is ok.
At this moment ffdhow_tryouts are one and only regularly developed ffdshow branch...

So thanks for all developers for a hard work but especially for ffdshow_tryout developers - thanks to them ffdshow is going forward.

[foxyshadis]

Ugh, don't mention Nimo's in the same breath as CCCP, that thing is my dad's rusted out chevy impala of the codec world. CCCP tends to enhance system stability instead of breaking it, with all their work on Insurgent.

[DeathTheSheep]

Yes, CCCP is a decent codec pack, especially for anime. However,

"hey cool off, its not important what they say my little lemmings. Let us continue to work on our glorious project until it becomes likened unto a paradise where no mean things can be said about it . :)"
Woah!! What's a lemming? :o

[PatchWorKs]

Codeck Pack ? Again ? Wake up guyz, we're into 2007 !

I already switched to VLC (http://www.videolan.org/) (play) Media Coder (http://mediacoder.sourceforge.net/) (encode)

VFW definetly suckz !

note: i just use ffdshow just on video editing machine, 'cause the video editing software don't support anything other...