ffdshow_rev4422_20120409

[varekai]

Thanks for the new BD Rebuilder v0.40.10!

I'm planning to install a software that requires ffdshow (ffdshow_rev4422_20120409.exe)
I know that it's recommended to use ffdshow (ffdshow_rev3882_20110613_clsid.exe) for BD-RB.
Is it possible to have two versions of FFDSHOW installed and point BD-RB to the recommended older version?
If not would BD-RB still be working using the newer version of ffdshow?
I know I won't get any help if somethings not working properly with BD-RB using the not recommended version.

Regards

[clsid]

You can only install one version. If it doesn't work with newer versions, then it is a piece of crap. But it will probably just work fine. Mostly likely they just tested one specific version.

[varekai]

You can only install one version. If it doesn't work with newer versions, then it is a piece of crap. But it will probably just work fine. Mostly likely they just tested one specific version.

Thanks for your reply, I'll test with latest ffdshow (ffdshow_rev4453_20120521_clsid.exe).

Regards

[LowDead]

As clsid says it will probably work just fine. Just remember that you can't do any bug reports if you encounter problems.

[jdobbs]

You can only install one version. If it doesn't work with newer versions, then it is a piece of crap. But it will probably just work fine. Mostly likely they just tested one specific version. Where the 'crap' is can be debated. I've come across numerous versions that will randomly cause issues (that go away when you revert to the recommended versions). I don't know how you can blame that on other software.

With that said, yes, it will probably work. But I won't accept bug reports until the same error is repeated with the recommended version.

[varekai]

From my point of view there's no crap in either one.
BD-RB works flawlessly the way I use it.
ffdshow is very easy to setup, has a small footprint, and will uninstall in seconds leaving no leftovers.
If I encounter any problems I can easily revert to the recommended version.

Regards

[soneca]

If it doesn't work with newer versions, then it is a piece of crap.
Focus on your own soft without interfering with the other, with stupid comments and pointless!!!

[clsid]

Where the 'crap' is can be debated. I've come across numerous versions that will randomly cause issues (that go away when you revert to the recommended versions). I don't know how you can blame that on other software.

With that said, yes, it will probably work. But I won't accept bug reports until the same error is repeated with the recommended version.I probably was a bit harsh. I just meant that requiring a specific version is something I am not a big fan of. Some software check versions, and even need things to be in specific locations. This isnt the case for your software. But some users of your software may wrongly interpret recommended as required, so perhaps you could somehow emphasize it that newer versions may work fine.

Is there a specific reason why you are recommending using ffdshow? It might be a good idea to switch to LAV Filters (in the future).

[jdobbs]

I probably was a bit harsh. I just meant that requiring a specific version is something I am not a big fan of. Some software check versions, and even need things to be in specific locations. This isnt the case for your software. But some users of your software may wrongly interpret recommended as required, so perhaps you could somehow emphasize it that newer versions may work fine.

Is there a specific reason why you are recommending using ffdshow? It might be a good idea to switch to LAV Filters (in the future). I would recommend LAV -- but I believe (if I remember correctly) there are still issues with interlaced VC-1 sources (unless its been corrected since the last time I tested it).

[clsid]

LAV uses the MS WMV DMO by default now for decoding VC1, just like ffdshow does. So interlaced stuff is handled fine now.

[jdobbs]

LAV uses the MS WMV DMO by default now for decoding VC1, just like ffdshow does. So interlaced stuff is handled fine now. I just tried the LAVF within X264 yesterday and it failed with VC-1 interlaced. I guess that's not where we were going with this. I'll download the LAV package and do some experimenting.