VFAPI Reader Codec 1.05.15?

[guada 2]

Hello :)

If I take an AVS file, and I convert it in AVI.vfp.
Will the properties be the sames than the AVS file?

Is there a big difference between an encoding pure AVS and an AVI.vfp which comes from the same AVS file?

Thank you for advance.

[Guest]

Your question is incoherent as stated because you don't make an AVI.vfp file.

I'll take a stab at it anyway. Converting an AVS script with VFAPI will force a conversion to RGB if the script does not deliver RGB. This can occur only with interlaced mode or progressive mode for all the frames. That is sometimes wrong, for example, if you have MPEG2 with some frames having progressive frame set and some not set. In that case you'd want to use upConv=true for Mpeg2Source() followed by conversion to RGB, all done in the AVS script.

Also, although you can force progressive or interlaced upsampling with VFAPI, it is more cumbersome than doing it in the AVS script.

[guada 2]

Hello Neuron2 :)

I was mistaken, I recognize it.
the extension is AVI and not AVI.vfp .

I confounded with a script that I wanted to make with Quicktime(*.mov) with the dll (QTReader.vfp)
LoadVFAPIPlugin ("* :\ * * * \ qtreader.vfp", "QTReader")
video = QTReader ("* * *. mov")
video = video.ChangeFPS(25) #PAL
video.FlipVertical

Thank you for your explanations

[guada 2]

Other question

A file. d2v it is not more reliable than an AVS?
I speak in term of quality and the respect of the picture of a video.

Why some software of conversion video refuse to work with the extension. d2v?

[Guest]

d2v it is not more reliable than an AVS? That's such a vague and ambiguous statement that I cannot even begin to answer it. A D2V file by itself is not reliable or not; it is the application that reads it that has that property. And the "reliability" of an AVS script strongly depends upon what that script contains.

Why some software of conversion video refuse to work with the extension. d2v? The authors did not code support for D2V reading. That's why D2V VFAPI readers (like DGVfapi) exist.

[guada 2]

Thank you neuron2

I pursue...
Some questioning

I always thought that the first gait of a treatment (as DGindex) was the source: so the basis of the quality. :confused:
But what quality can speak a script? The quality which obeys with the eye or to the source?

I have full of questions of the sort. But the discussion will be too long.

What conversion do you prefer ?
AVS (dgindex + avisynth) to AVI (vfapi-conv) Or
AVI (vfapi-conv) to AVS (avisynth)

To soon ;)

[magicclue]

sorry to interupt your personal questions&answers lesson ;)

But why do you use VFAPI frameserving if you are able to use avisynth alone?
I don't get it.

----
directshowsource("movie.mov", 25)
# 25 for PAL
# or anything else
#insert
#ConvertToYV12(interlaced=true)
#if interlaced
#check directshowdecoders for tampering with the movie
----

[Guest]

I always thought that the first gait of a treatment (as DGindex) was the source: so the basis of the quality. :confused:
But what quality can speak a script? The quality which obeys with the eye or to the source? I cannot make any sense out of anything you've said here.

What conversion do you prefer ?
AVS (dgindex + avisynth) to AVI (vfapi-conv) Or
AVI (vfapi-conv) to AVS (avisynth) The only time to use VFAPI is when it is demanded by an application that cannot read an AVS script, Therefore, your second option makes no sense, because VFAPI is used gratuitously.

But why do you use VFAPI frameserving if you are able to use avisynth alone? I don't get it. Sure you do get it. :) See above.

[guada 2]

magicclue

The Vfapi codec reader 1.05.15 allows me to pass by a file d2v or a file avs to get a file. AVI.
The file obtained * * * vfapi.avi is exploited by all software accepting the format . AVI; whereas the AVS is less.

A file. AVI (Vfapi-conv) in its structure is not modifiable whereas the AVS is easily.

Neuron2
"Therefore, your second option makes no sense, because VFAPI is used gratuitously".

why do you say this?
finally you don't have twisted either. :)

look at:
if I do this:

d2v (dgindex) + Tmpgenc
d2v (dgindex) / avi (vfapi-conv) + Tmpgenc
d2v (dgindex) / avi (vfapi-conv) / avs (avisynth) +Tmpgenc
d2v (dgindex) / avs (avisynth) + Tmpgenc

which of these four tests is really satisfactory.

[Guest]

which of these four tests is really satisfactory. I'm not interested in metaphysical or aesthetic debates. The pros and cons of VFAPI are clear. Don't forget that using DGVfapi to decode the MPEG2 forecloses the possibility of using some of the powerful features of Mpeg2Source().

[guada 2]

"I'm not interested in metaphysical or aesthetic debates".

Mr neuron2
I am not a scientist and I don't find anything in aesthetic or metaphysical.

Thank you very much..

Bye.