Media Player Classic - Home Cinema (MPC-HC) - v1.7.13

[GCRaistlin]

Please upload sample file and I will see what can I do.

I'm talking about Speed Ratio feature of XySubFilter. What kind of sample file do you want me to upload?

[cyberbeing]

Would it be possible to set XySubFilter to "Hide Subtitles"?
To do that with external subtitles, they'd need to use the IDirectVobSub interface. Yet once they start integrating IDirectVobSub support, they may as well load external subtitles with it as well like MPC-BE did. As Kasper93 said, they are likely just busy with other things since they don't see this as a priority. There already is ticket assigned to Underground78 here (https://trac.mpc-hc.org/ticket/4122) regarding utilizing the IDirectVobSub (https://github.com/mpc-hc/mpc-hc/blob/develop/src/filters/transform/VSFilter/IDirectVobSub.h) when available (backporting the work MPC-BE has done), there just hasn't been any movement on it in the past year. Implementing something similar to the subtitle renderer selection dialog of MPC-BE would be the next logical step, after IDirectVobSub support is in place.

Either way, anything is better than just closing the movie currently playing.

I'd agree with that, but overall I still see it as a bad thing to have both VSFilter|XySubFilter & ISR active at the same time. Until MPC-HC gets around to introducing proper drag 'n drop support for external subtitle filters, they'd probably be better off ignoring any attempts to do so if the ISR is disabled.

[GCRaistlin]

Why 32-bit Floating-point output format is disabled in LAV Audio MPC-HC internal filter by default?

[nevcairiel]

It should only be disabled if you use Windows XP, because XP has terrible audio support.

[iron2000]

Since so many versions have past, is the 64bit version on par or better then the 32bit version now?

[huhn]

Since so many versions have past, is the 64bit version on par or better then the 32bit version now?

the 64 bit decoder are faster up to 100% faster.

[LigH]

But they can use only 64 bit decoders. So, e.g. no VfW codecs which may be installed in your Windows. It relies more on implemented formats in LAV Filters than the 32 bit version, which has a few more options to try.

[v0lt]

the 64 bit decoder are faster up to 100% faster.
I do not believe. :p

[huhn]

I do not believe. :p

HEVC is up to 100 % faster if you compare 32 and 64 bit lavfilter.

EDIT:

here an example: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1705352&postcount=177

3.Beauty-2160p@30fps-12.3Mbps


LAV x64 CPU 43/62/75 CPU 88%

Lentoid CPU 23/38/40 CPU 61%

PowerDVD CPU 25/33/36 CPU 48%

LAV x86 CPU 20/29/31 CPU 91%

Lentoid OpenCL 8/27/30 CPU 47% GPU 80%

PowerDVD OpenCL 18/26/33 CPU 40% GPU 52%

[v0lt]

Hmm.
i5-3570K, Beauty-2160p, LAV 0.65.0

decode:
LAV x86 - 49 fps
LAV x64 - 67 fps (+37%)
LAV x64, 16 threads - 88 fps (+80%)

playback with scale to 1920x1080:
LAV x86 - 32 fps
LAV x64 - 48 fps (+50%)
LAV x64, 16 threads - 54 fps (+69%)

Very interesting. Forcing 16 threads on a 4 core CPU gives an additional 20%!

[huhn]

fell free to add 32-128 thread support in MPC-BE decoder i'm sure NikosD will have so fun with it X-).
but this usually only works on some samples.

[NikosD]

After the release of Lentoid v2.0.3.2 x86 HEVC decoder, which is the fastest x86 HEVC decoder, there is no need to add threads to the slowest HEVC x86 decoder which is the LAV x86, regarding CPU decoding under any OS and any CPU architecture.

The difference is huge and can't be covered by adding more threads.

Take a look here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1717938

[huhn]

who said it is for x86?

[ryrynz]

Do a few more tests on various samples, wouldn't hurt to see what x86 stands to gain if anything as well.. even though it's use would be in decline now.

[NikosD]

In all tests and samples, Lentoid x86 is always the fastest and LAV x86 the slowest.

For pre-SSE4.1 CPU architectures even LAV x64 is almost two times slower than Lentoid x86 !

LAV x64 is very fast for SSE4.1 or better CPU - ONLY.

[minaust]

Since so many versions have past, is the 64bit version on par or better then the 32bit version now?
My take on it is the only thing missing was a 64-bit build of madVR, which we now have. There seems to be a general shortage of 64-bit directshow plugins, but that shortage is diminishing due to the increased availability of low-cost and free 64-bit compilers.

The only problem I have is I still use the 32-bit Avisynth, so I still need the 32-bit MPC-HC for that. But the 64-bit build performs identically to the 32-bit build. I have 3 Windows 7 64-bit systems - one low-end, one high-end, and an extreme high-end system (a room heater with Nvidia graphics) and it performs equally well on all three.

The 64-bit proponents claim that the 64-bit build of any player utilizes system resources more efficiently. The 64-bit detractors claim a 64-bit player uses twice the resources to achieve the same results as the 32-bit builds.

My bottom line: the 64-bit build of MPC-HC is here and has been here for quite a while now, assuming you have a reasonably modernj CPU.

[nijiko]

Will MPC-HC change build project to MVC++ 2015?

[tobindac]

Can I say something rude? But please, please understand I do it because I think it might help you: The name of the software is absolutely horrible.

It is both confusing but also very old fashioned, explicitly. I reminds to people of Microsoft's Players and old terms.

I love this software so much that I'm pretty sure right now that it's the reason why others use other trash.

[e-t172]

There seems to be a general shortage of 64-bit directshow plugins, but that shortage is diminishing due to the increased availability of low-cost and free 64-bit compilers.

I'm nitpicking, but the availability of 64-bit compilers has nothing to do with the increase in 64-bit DirectShow plugins; it's because previously there was no good reason to prefer a 64-bit video pipeline to a 32-bit video pipeline. Today there is actually a good reason: it's because HEVC decoders are now optimized for 64-bit first.

[LigH]

@ tobindac:

At least you said this (not even very) "rude" statement in a much more civilized form than a few other people replying here. :thanks:

But the name has a good reason, a "historical tradition" even: The first versions of MPC (by Gabest) looked a lot like the Microsoft Windows Media Player 6.4, and MPC-HC today still does, to some degree.

People using different software may have their reasons to prefer that. Maybe they prefer cool looking interfaces over well attended features. Who knows. Their decision. But there is no need to worry that users of MPC variants will go extinct. Just because this software appears to be reasonable. At least to me; and probably also to others enjoying powerful features combined with a clear and simple interface.

I am a content user. And the name doesn't spoil my experience.

[minaust]

I'm nitpicking, but the availability of 64-bit compilers has nothing to do with the increase in 64-bit DirectShow plugins; it's because previously there was no good reason to prefer a 64-bit video pipeline to a 32-bit video pipeline. Today there is actually a good reason: it's because HEVC decoders are now optimized for 64-bit first.
Heh - that's exactly the minefield I was trying to avoid stepping into.:D

My contention, to which I alluded in my OP, is of the 64-bit proponents and detractors, is that there were reasons before HEVC to go 64-bit. But it appears that HEVC has become the magic bullet. As for me, the only way to generate 64-bit code was GCC. I don't code professionally any more, so I don't have the justification to lay $1000 on Micro$oft or Intel for a full-featured Windows compiler. The 2013 Community Edition helped a lot - and probably not just for me.

[foxyshadis]

Heh - that's exactly the minefield I was trying to avoid stepping into.:D

My contention, to which I alluded in my OP, is of the 64-bit proponents and detractors, is that there were reasons before HEVC to go 64-bit. But it appears that HEVC has become the magic bullet. As for me, the only way to generate 64-bit code was GCC. I don't code professionally any more, so I don't have the justification to lay $1000 on Micro$oft or Intel for a full-featured Windows compiler. The 2013 Community Edition helped a lot - and probably not just for me.

It's been a long time since that was true. Visual C++ Express 2005, 2008, and 2010 didn't bundle the 64-bit compiler, but it was always available if you installed the Platform/Windows SDK. Since 2012, it's been bundled into the Express edition, finally, so projects don't need to be updated to work with it.

The real problem is that 64-bit software used to be slower and use more memory. Memory's not a big deal and better use of the wider instructions reversed the slowdown in the last couple of years, so now switching is finally a no-brainer.

[Octo-puss]

@ tobindac:

At least you said this (not even very) "rude" statement in a much more civilized form than a few other people replying here. :thanks:

But the name has a good reason, a "historical tradition" even: The first versions of MPC (by Gabest) looked a lot like the Microsoft Windows Media Player 6.4, and MPC-HC today still does, to some degree.

People using different software may have their reasons to prefer that. Maybe they prefer cool looking interfaces over well attended features. Who knows. Their decision. But there is no need to worry that users of MPC variants will go extinct. Just because this software appears to be reasonable. At least to me; and probably also to others enjoying powerful features combined with a clear and simple interface.

I am a content user. And the name doesn't spoil my experience.

The moment MPC-HC changes name and the GUI, I am switching to something else :P I like it the way it is and have been for what, 10 years? Don't touch it!!

[JarrettH]

Some of us are pretty used to the MPC feel, but the toolbar is honestly visually blah. Here's a good looking one to replace it...

https://trac.mpc-hc.org/wiki/Toolbar_images

https://trac.mpc-hc.org/raw-attachment/wiki/Toolbar_images/mpc_toolbar_Glossy_by_longinus.png

[ryrynz]

There has been much talk about the GUI for a long time.. it'll need to be updated sooner or later.

[vivan]

Why? It's almost modern now. Simple single colored buttons is a current trend, rainbowed glossy is oudated :P
(although sound/mute icon must be replaced to match other buttons).

[GCRaistlin]

Some of us are pretty used to the MPC feel, but the toolbar is honestly visually blah. Here's a good looking one to replace it...


Definitely no. Why do you need big colored buttons - do you see poorly?

[the_weirdo]

I don't even need toolbar, but a better looking seek bar is a welcome change.

[GCRaistlin]

Personally, I don't find colored stains looking good. The only thing in the player window that should be bright is the picture itself.

[Reith]

I don't even need toolbar, but a better looking seek bar is a welcome change.

This. The seekbar and the volume slider both look ancient, and not in a good way.

Other than that, the GUI is fine since most of it should be space for the video anyway.

[ryrynz]

Why? It's almost modern now. Simple single colored buttons is a current trend, rainbowed glossy is oudated :P
(although sound/mute icon must be replaced to match other buttons).

It's far from modern. You'll find modern player looks on many websites with built in video players.

I'm not saying this is how I want it to be, but it's a good indication of what I mean. I expect most programs will have to switch a new touch compatible UI eventually in future.

http://i.imgur.com/pIH2hT8l.png

[GCRaistlin]

The seekbar and the volume slider both look ancient, and not in a good way.

I don't understand why some people think that things should change from time to time without any reason except they got "ancient".
Current interface works fine, and we all got used to it. Any change will just bother users and won't give any advantages. Classic should remain classic.

The only way I find acceptable is to introduce themes. Then I'd select "Classic" theme and forget about it forever. And I believe I'd be not the only one.

[bacondither]

Looks okay for me. Could be a bit prettier but.. meeh

http://s16.postimg.org/y7y7i4c1x/mpc_hc.png

[Duffy Moon]

The windowed interface is too bright for me, as I use a projector and it creates too much brightness in the room. A dark background would be preferable.

[LigH]

For this case, there is the competitor project "Media Player Classic - Black Edition" (MPC-BE). It also differs in details regarding some implementations.

[Reith]

I don't understand why some people think that things should change from time to time without any reason except they got "ancient".
Current interface works fine, and we all got used to it. Any change will just bother users and won't give any advantages. Classic should remain classic.

Because it sticks out like a sore thumb on a modern operating system. Of course the current interface works fine; we're talking about aesthetics, not utility.

I hardly see how re-skinning the seekbar and volume slider to look a bit nicer will cause problems for users.

[GCRaistlin]

Because it sticks out like a sore thumb on a modern operating system.
Quite the contrary, a sore thumb here is a modern OS :)

I hardly see how re-skinning the seekbar and volume slider to look a bit nicer will cause problems for users.
What is nicer for you can be (and definitely will be) uglier for others.

[ryrynz]

Quite the contrary, a sore thumb here is a modern OS :)


Quick OT. Android is IMO a much more well designed (GUI wise) modern OS. Windows 10 will certainly address many of the shortcomings of 8.1 but it looks like there's still some ways to go.
I'm actually quite liking the modern UI redesigns I see of many programs, much cleaner and easier to work with. It's not a case of if with MPC, it's a case of when.


What is nicer for you can be (and definitely will be) uglier for others.

And this is why we have options.

[captainadamo]

Because it sticks out like a sore thumb on a modern operating system. Of course the current interface works fine; we're talking about aesthetics, not utility.

Yes, it sticks out as a sane, familiar, usable UI in a sea of change for change's sake.

I hardly see how re-skinning the seekbar and volume slider to look a bit nicer will cause problems for users.

But does leaving them as is actually cause anyone problems? Sometimes not fixing things that aren't broken is a better solution rather than solutions in search of problems.

[Reith]

Quite the contrary, a sore thumb here is a modern OS :)

It's fine if you think this, just realize that the majority of users do not hold the same opinion (not talking specifically about MPC here, just operating systems in general).

What is nicer for you can be (and definitely will be) uglier for others.

Oh please. You're completely writing it off before even considering any of the details. I don't know why some people are so afraid of change. In all likelihood, if it happens, they will give us options like ryrynz said. Some of us don't want to be stuck in Windows 98 forever.

[ryrynz]

But does leaving them as is actually cause anyone problems? Sometimes not fixing things that aren't broken is a better solution rather than solutions in search of problems.

All comes down to what the developers time and priorities lie. The UI is basically 20 years old in appearance.. BE looks a lot nicer but is still fairly basic looking.

[Reith]

All I'm asking is for people to consider the appeal of a SLIGHT UI redesign on its own merits instead of instantly recoiling in disgust just because it's something new.

[captainadamo]

All comes down to what the developers time and priorities lie. The UI is basically 20 years old in appearance.. BE looks a lot nicer but is still fairly basic looking.

And the steering wheel in a 2015 car is going on 120 years old. So what? Sometimes things don't need to change for the sake of changing things.

[captainadamo]

All I'm asking is for people to consider the appeal of a SLIGHT UI redesign on its own merits instead of instantly recoiling in disgust just because it's something new.

Ok. Layout the exact, documented usability problems the redesign is fixing (it looks old doesn't count) along with your usability studies to back up that the changes are worthwhile.

[Reith]

Why do you keep going back to usability? I already said that's not what I'm talking about at all.

You guys are just proving that you can't even have a rational discussion about this topic.

/e: I'm not going to bother posting anymore because this isn't a productive discussion at this point. I just find it funny how every time someone brings up the fact that certain elements of the UI are dated, you immediately get two or three people who flip out and say it's perfect the way it is. As I already said, it's not about usability. If MPC-HC had usability problems, obviously I wouldn't be using it.

But I don't see how you can dispute that parts of it are relics from the Windows 98 era. Programs generally try to integrate themselves as smoothly into the OS as possible, to look nicer to the user. Not saying this is a universal thing, but it's a pretty common goal. Most people these days are using Windows 7 and above. No one is talking about a drastic UI overhaul, just something to make the seekbar look a bit nicer at the very least. And hopefully we would be given the option to keep the old one to satisfy everyone. But I'm not a developer and I have no ability to make this happen, so like I said, not a productive discussion.

[filler56789]

I don't know why some people are so afraid of change.

Maybe because many/most "changes" are useless /annoying /counter-productive?

Some of us don't want to be stuck in Windows 98 forever.

So you really believe that a better OS does have to have an interface with more (and 'mandatory') eye-candies?
If your answer is «yes», then you believe wrong :)

[Reith]

So you really believe that a better OS does have to have an interface with more (and 'mandatory') eye-candies?
If your answer is «yes», then you believe wrong :)

No, this isn't what I was saying or attempting to say _at all_. Read the edit in my last post.

[GCRaistlin]

just realize that the majority of users do not hold the same opinion
There's another majority of users who hate any unneeded change.

You're completely writing it off before even considering any of the details.
Details don't matter. The only good reason to change the interface is to make it more usable because "nicer" is a relative thing. Personally, I find Win98 interface the best so your "nicer" and my one will never match.

All I'm asking is for people to consider the appeal of a SLIGHT UI redesign on its own merits instead of instantly recoiling in disgust just because it's something new.
We are getting enough new things in other areas. Let's leave something alone :) Or at least let's allow some of us to let it alone.

[ryrynz]

And the steering wheel in a 2015 car is going on 120 years old. So what? Sometimes things don't need to change for the sake of changing things.

You're comparing a whole item vs redesign, the steering wheel has many different designs. Anyway, I'm not continuing with the discussion further.
Like I said it's just a matter of when it happens and there's certainly no reason why it can't have a slight design tweak like BE.

[the_weirdo]

There will be people who against the changes. There will always be. Like someone said, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something."

EDIT: Some people were talking about usability as if any changes to the seek bar would completely ruin its usability. Heck, even VLC has better looking seek bar than MPC-HC. But I do not demand anything, it's all up to the devs to decide something is worth to implement or not.