Simple x264/x265 Launcher v3.02 (2022-06-16)

[gonca]

x264 license: Non-Free
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] libswscale/libavformat/ffmpegsource license: nonfree and unredistributable
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] WARNING: This binary is unredistributable!
Is this correct?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Is this correct?

Where do you see this? Did you replace the x264 binaries that were included with the Simple x264/x265 Launcher?

With the x264 binaries that currently ship with Simple x264/x265 Launcher, I see:

x264_x64_launcher\res\toolset\x64\x264_x64.exe --version
x264 0.159.2991 1771b55
(libswscale 5.6.100)
(libavformat 58.35.101)
(ffmpegsource 2.31.0.0)
built on Jan 2 2020, gcc: 9.2.0
x264 configuration: --chroma-format=all
libx264 configuration: --chroma-format=all
x264 license: GPL version 2 or later
libswscale/libavformat/ffmpegsource license: GPL version 2 or later

[gonca]

Where do you see this?
In deco20's log
I checked the log on a default download version to compare, because it didn't look right
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] x264 0.159.2991+49 524a90c t_mod_New [0-bit@all X86_64]
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] (libswscale 5.5.100)
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] (libavformat 58.29.100)
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] (ffmpegsource 2.31.0.0)
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] built on Dec 21 2019, gcc: 9.2.1 20191212
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] x264 configuration: --chroma-format=all--disable-opencl
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] libx264 configuration: --chroma-format=all--disable-opencl
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] x264 license: Non-Free
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] libswscale/libavformat/ffmpegsource license: nonfree and unredistributable
[2020-01-04][15:39:31] WARNING: This binary is unredistributable!
[2020-01-04][15:39:31]


Edit
I was commenting on deco20's problem

[LoRd_MuldeR]

In deco20's log
I checked the log on a default download version to compare, because it didn't look right

Edit
I was commenting on deco20's problem

So, apparently, deco20 has replaced the x264 binaries that ship with Simple x264/x265 Launcher. It looks like he is using the "t_mod_New" build instead.

I just downloaded the latest "t_mod" build from here (https://github.com/jpsdr/x264/releases/latest) and checked. Indeed, this build prints the "This binary is unredistributable!" warning – which means that whoever is distributing those binaries is probably violating the license! :eek:

Just to make it clear again: Simple x264/x265 Launcher does not ship with "t_mod" build, and never has. Also, this is probably not related to deco20's original problem.

[UPDATE]

New version of x264 "t_mod" build has resolved this issue.

[tormento]

Pssst.... I just noticed you forgot to update x264 & x265 download links ;)

[Forteen88]

Here is a new TEST build that has the latest x264 and Avs2YUV versions included:
x264_launcher-TEST.2020-01-03.exe (https://sourceforge.net/projects/muldersoft/files/Simple%20x264%20Launcher/Testing/x264_launcher-TEST.2020-01-03.exe/download)Thanks! Now I've tried it, and it works great, although I mostly used standard settings when I made my encode. Could you please release a portable version though, if that's not too much trouble?

[tormento]

Could you please release a portable version though, if that's not too much trouble?
Just rename to x264_launcher_portable.exe

[Forteen88]

Just rename to x264_launcher_portable.exeOK, thanks, but there is still stuff in the installation-register with this new Test-version.

[tormento]

I'd like to give a try to HDR encoding and I am kinda newbie in that sector. Using DGIndexNV to decode video, there is something I need specifically to set on x265 to add metainfo and, above all, how is x264 launcher support about hdr?

[Atak_Snajpera]

there is something I need specifically to set on x265 to add metainfo and, above all, how is x264 launcher support about hdr?
example for HDR-PQ
Color primaries : BT.2020
Transfer characteristics : PQ
Matrix coefficients : BT.2020 non-constant
Mastering display color primaries : Display P3
Mastering display luminance : min: 0.0050 cd/m2, max: 4000 cd/m2
Maximum Content Light Level : 1529 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 380 cd/m2

--colorprim bt2020 --transfer smpte2084 --colormatrix bt2020nc --master-display "G(13250,34500)B(7500,3000)R(34000,16000)WP(15635,16450)L(40000000,50)" --max-cll "1529,380"

example for HDR-HLG

Color primaries : BT.2020
Transfer characteristics : HLG
Matrix coefficients : BT.2020 non-constant

--colorprim bt2020 --transfer arib-std-b67 --colormatrix bt2020nc --atc-sei 18 --pic-struct 0

[tormento]

example for HDR-PQ
So I don’t have to “demux” meta info before encoding and remux it after?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Only If you work with hdr10+. Older hdr10 uses global static hdr data.

[tormento]

Only If you work with hdr10+

I really miss the good old doom9 guides...

Can you link me some more examples?

I badly need to update my skills with HDR procedures.

Thanks.

[Atak_Snajpera]

What examples?

[tormento]

What examples?

How to “demux” and “remux” HDR data and which tools are needed. Or AVS+ scripts modifications, if needed.

[Atak_Snajpera]

https://github.com/quietvoid/hdr10plus_parser/releases

[tormento]

https://github.com/quietvoid/hdr10plus_parser/releases

Thanks!

[ProWo]

Thank you, mate.

[tormento]

6 months old alert!

Please remove it on next build :)

[tormento]

Please notice that when using NVEncC, the custom encoder parameters accept -u quality but not --preset quality.

Did not try other relevant switches.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Please notice that when using NVEncC, the custom encoder parameters accept -u quality but not --preset quality.

Did not try other relevant switches.

You cannot set the "--preset" switch from the custom encoder options, because the preset is selected via combobox from basic encoder options. The switch is added to the command-line automatically.

Having said that, the "preset" combobox currently is empty/disabled for NVEncC, probably because it did not support presets when NVEncC support was added...

[tormento]

Having said that, the "preset" combobox currently is empty/disabled for NVEncC, probably because it did not support presets when NVEncC support was added...
Enough to use -u... strange enough it bypasses checks :p

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Enough to use -u... strange enough it bypasses checks :p

Will be fixed in the next release.

[tormento]

Will be fixed in the next release.
[…]
x264 0.160.3000 33f9e14
[…]
WARNING: Your x264 binary uses an untested core (API) version, take care!
[…]
Do I need some condom? :D

[rsotome]

is there a switch to bypass the 6 month alert?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

is there a switch to bypass the 6 month alert?

Sry, new version will be released very soon. Please stay tuned!

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Simple x264/x265 Launcher v2.96
https://github.com/lordmulder/Simple-x264-Launcher/releases/tag/v2.96

Version 2.96 [2020-04-17]
* Updated x264 to revision 3000 (API v160)
* Updated x265 to version 3.3+1
* Updated build environment to Visual Studio 2019 with Update-5
* Updated cURL to version 7.69.1 (2020-03-11)

Version 2.95 [2020-01-03]
* Updated x264 to revision 2991 (API v159)
* Updated Avs2YUV to version 0.24 (BugMaster's mod 6)
* Updated build environment to Visual Studio 2019 with Update-4

[rsotome]

soooooo much better, thank you! oh look, it's able to remember queue's again. :)

[tormento]

Simple x264/x265 Launcher v2.96
Thanks man!

Why x264 binaries are different in size than the ones on Videolan? Do you compile on your own or you take from other sources?

[kebulek]

Thank you for new version, especially for adding tune Animation! :)

@tormento: It's LigH's version.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Why x264 binaries are different in size than the ones on Videolan?

Videolan.org builds do not have FFMS enabled. Also, apparently, a different (older) version of GCC was used.

[tormento]

Simple x264/x265 Launcher v2.96
NVEncC 5.00 out now :p

[LoRd_MuldeR]

NVEncC 5.00 out now :p

Try here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/muldersoft/files/Simple%20x264%20Launcher/Testing/x264_launcher-TEST.2020-04-18.exe/download

[tormento]

Try here

:thanks:

Did you included the new switches in the GUI?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

:thanks:

Did you included the new switches in the GUI?

The GUI generally does not handle any switches for you, except for the basic rate-control options and the Preset/Tuning/Profile selection.

Anything else you will have to add to the "Custom Encoder Parameters" field, if it should be required.

[r0lZ]

I am trying to install x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip (from here (https://github.com/lordmulder/Simple-x264-Launcher/releases/tag/v2.96)) but I can't. BitDefender detects curl.exe as a virus and blocks it, and since the temp directory created by 7-zip when I try to extract the file from the archive is always different, I can't exclude it from the scan.

Tried also the installer, with the same result.

I have managed to send curl.exe to VirusTotal, and indeed, it is considered as a virus by 13 antivirus engines: see here (https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/5f88c6074d06696e30fb3967e73aa01618f0b927b0ab032cbd6ee50791ddb534/detection).

13/73 is a really bad score. Perhaps you should consider to remove, change or update that exe file ? Anyway, currently, a lot of peoples will be unable to install your program, and it's a pity.

Also, your program verifies the exe it needs, and refuse to work when curl.exe is not present or blocked, so currently, I can't use it.

[EDIT] I have restored the previous version of the launcher from a backup, and the curl.exe file in that release is not detected as a virus (only 1 engine detects it as suspicious). Also, its size is very different: 337 KB instead of 1154 KB. So, I guess that curl.exe in your latest release is really infected. Take care !

[tormento]

BitDefender detects curl.exe as a virus and blocks it

Uninstall any AV you have and use Windows 10 one. It’s one of the best, if not the best indeed.

[videoh]

I confirm that Windows Defender finds no issues with curl.exe.

[Sharc]

It complains about Groucho's Avisynth Info Tool v1.1.0 instead……...

[r0lZ]

Uninstall any AV you have and use Windows 10 one. It’s one of the best, if not the best indeed.
It's not because a specific antivirus doesn't detect it that it is not a virus. Also, M$ is well known for the bad quality of its antivirus programs, and although the latest engine might be better, it is not recommended by most comparative charts. As you can see here (https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/malware-protection-test-march-2020/), BitDefender is still the best AV, far ahead of Windows Defender. I will certainly not uninstall the excellent BitDefender and trust M$ instead ! I would instead recommend exactly the opposite.

Anyway, I can only repeat that 13/73 is not an acceptable VirusTotal score, and the difference with the previous version means that something is obviously wrong. Even if, out of the blue, the bad score is caused by an unlikely series of false positives, many users will not be able to use the launcher while that file is present. IMO, that means that something must be done to fix the problem.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Anyway, I can only repeat that 13/73 is not an acceptable VirusTotal score, and the difference with the previous version means that something is obviously wrong. Even if, out of the blue, the bad score is caused by an unlikely series of false positives, many users will not be able to use the launcher while that file is present.

Yup, 13 out of 73 anti-virus programs causing false positives definitely is not acceptable. But this fits the picture. The “quality” of anti-virus software is one sad story.

Just in case anybody missed it, researchers just recently found a serious vulnerability affecting (almost) every anti-virus software on the marked and turning them into self-destructive tools:
https://www.rack911labs.com/research/exploiting-almost-every-antivirus-software/

IMO, that means that something must be done to fix the problem.

Definitely! And that "something" is that people and enterprises really need to stop giving any money to anti-virus companies for as long as they keep on delivering the crapware that they have been selling for decades now. If and only if the anti-virus companies' choice is to either get their stuff fixed or to go bankrupt, then something might change. But, for as long as people keep on complaining about anti-virus-related problems to the innocent software developers – who can do exactly nothing about the cause of the problem, and who hopefully don't waste their time on trying to workaround the symptoms – rather than demanding the required fixes from the anti-virus companies, certainly nothing is going to change...

I have restored the previous version of the launcher from a backup, and the curl.exe file in that release is not detected as a virus (only 1 engine detects it as suspicious). Also, its size is very different: 337 KB instead of 1154 KB. So, I guess that curl.exe in your latest release is really infected. Take care!

cURL has been updated to the latest version. The binary shipped with Simple x264 Launcher is the one provided on the "official" cURL web-site.

Note that, depending on which compiler is used to build cURL, depending on which of the optional dependencies are enabled, and depending on whether dependencies are linked statically or as DLL, the size of the binary may change quite a lot.

(I think older Windows binaries of cURL were linked against Windows' Schannel DLL for SSL/TLS, while the newer ones are statically linked against OpenSSL; probably to enable TLS 1.3 independently of the Windows version)

[jlw_4049]

Just use windows defender. Works perfectly.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[videoh]

BitDefender is still the best AV As if we don't have enough shills for BitDefender.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Just use windows defender. Works perfectly.

"Perfectly" is an exaggeration, IMO, but it is definitely one of the less annoying ones.

The reason is obvious: Microsoft is providing Defender as a "free" (yes, provided you have a Windows license) component. So their interest is not in selling Defender licenses, but in keeping Defender-related support cases at a minimum. Hence, the usual scare tactics (i.e. ensure that there will be alerts about alleged "dangerous" files at regular intervals), which are used by other a/v companies to get their customers into renewing the payed subscription, aren't relevant here.

[jlw_4049]

"Perfectly" is an exaggeration, IMO, but it is definitely one of the less annoying ones.

The reason is obvious: Microsoft is providing Defender as a "free" (yes, provided you have a Windows license) component. So their interest is not in selling Defender licenses, but in keeping Defender-related support cases at a minimum. Hence, the usual scare tactics (i.e. ensure that there will be alerts about alleged "dangerous" files at regular intervals), which are used by other a/v companies to get their customers into renewing the payed subscription, aren't relevant here.

Yes I agree. I've never had any issues with it, as opposed to other virus software programs actually causing me issues and hours and hours of my time trouble shooting something that the virus software was causing the entire time.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

The false positive is probably caused by UPX packing.

Please don't mix up symptom and cause.

If the same EXE file, of which we know it's 100% clean, gets classified as "malware" just because it was packed by UPX, then that is a symptom of a serious bug in the a/v software.

The cause is a bug in the a/v software, not that the file was packed by UPX.

Regardless of the "pros" and "cons" of EXE packing that could be discussed, the use of EXE packers – especially the very popular UPX – per se is perfectly legitimate and therefore must not be blocked by a/v software under any circumstances!

Being able to deal with EXE packes and analyze the actual (uncompressed) code has been a standard feature of a/v software for decades now. If they haven't been able to get this working properly by now, time to find another job...

That's one of the reason I am never a fan of UPX.

Unfortunately, it is exactly this kind of subservient behavior, i.e. changing your perfectly legitimate behavior in order to workaround bugs in A/V software, which makes these people think they can get away with it.

Not going to happen for me ;)

The curl in x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip gets a 4/72 score now on VirusTotal; on the other hand, the official curl binary (https://curl.haxx.se/windows/) gets a 0/71 score.

Quite possible that tomorrow, after the anti-virus "gods" have rolled their dice again (aka "the next signature update"), these numbers will be the other way around ;)

[videoh]

The false positive is probably caused by UPX packing. That's one of the reason I am never a fan of UPX. The curl in x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip gets a 4/72 score now on VirusTotal; on the other hand, the official curl binary (https://curl.haxx.se/windows/) gets a 0/71 score. Seems like Simple Launcher (great app) should use the official binary. What did I miss?

[r0lZ]

"Perfectly" is an exaggeration, IMO, but it is definitely one of the less annoying ones.
Of course. An antivirus that doesn't detect "true positive" virus is less annoying than a good antivirus that detects all virus. And if the BitDefender antivirus is the best according to AV Comparatives, it's of course because it doesn't omit some virus, but also because it has almost almost no false positives. So, IMO, it should be trusted.

The reason is obvious: Microsoft is providing Defender as a "free" (yes, provided you have a Windows license) component. So their interest is not in selling Defender licenses, but in keeping Defender-related support cases at a minimum. And therefore probably its ease in letting important viruses through.

I remember that in the past M$ explicitly requested to install a third party antivirus, and explained that Defender is only a small barrier active during the installation of Windows, and that it was essential to replace it with a real, powerful antivirus. I can admit that since XP, Defender has made progress, but the fact is that it remains one of the worst.

Also, a VA provider cannot afford to have a too bad score, or too many false positives, because its reputation depends on it, which also leaves it with little chance of selling its solutions. So, sorry, but I don't think they detect false positives on purpose.

Anyway, I use BitDefender FREE Edition. I can agree that they may try to sell their paid software by scaring you, but it is certainly one of the most silent AV I know, unlike other free AV like Avast for example. So, IMO, the commercial argument is not really convincing.

Anyway, the fact remains that many users will be scared by the AV warning, and will uninstall your program immediately. It's a pity, especially if it is sufficient to install a good version of curl.exe, that doesn't trigger so many false (or true) positives.

The curl in x264_launcher.2020-04-17.zip gets a 4/72 score now on VirusTotal; on the other hand, the official curl binary (https://curl.haxx.se/windows/) gets a 0/71 score.Another evidence that something is wrong. It is always possible that a programmer has built that version on an infected computer. Precautions are essential, as with corona!

For my part, I have only pointed out the problem to enable you to act in the best possible way. I don't want to interfere any more, but for my part, I have replaced the questionable version with a good one. I can no longer ask to check for updates from the program (why?) but at least I can encode again.

[tormento]

Of course.
Omitting my considerations about necessity and dangers of 3rd party AV, I can only suggest you

THIS (https://curl.haxx.se/docs/install.html)

[stax76]

I use curl in the updater function of mpv.net and MediaInfo.NET, in Windows 10 curl is included, in Windows 7 my feature is broken and I don't care, I'm not really spending extra time only for Windows 7 users, who wants the update feature has to install powershell 5.1 and curl.