A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 10th 18, 11:49 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in message
news
On 8/10/2018 5:42 AM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
On 09/08/2018 22:38, Tim wrote:
"M


CAN YOU JUST **** OFF. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS 10;


Take it easy... stay calm!

GO **** YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER ****ER.


You don't persuade nor order someone to commit incest! It's a crime in
most countries.


Oedipus thought differently :-)

Ads
  #32  
Old August 10th 18, 12:29 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In message , Mr. Man-wai
Chang writes:
On 8/10/2018 5:42 AM, 0 On 09/08/2018 22:38, Tim wrote:
"M


CAN YOU JUST **** OFF. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS 10;


Take it easy... stay calm!


And check where you're posting. I saw this post in the Windows 7 group
_only_, no crossposting. (Not that your post has now anything to do with
7 either, but the thread obviously did initially.)

GO **** YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER ****ER.


You don't persuade nor order someone to commit incest! It's a crime in
most countries.

Are you sure? IANAL, but I don't think it is a crime _as such_ in UK or
US (though many people _disapprove_ of it), unless whatever is done is
an offence for other reasons (mostly child abuse). [I'm not sure
whether, if actual _conception_ occurs, it may be a crime in slightly
more countries.] Not that this justifies shouting abuse, certainly not
here.

Generally, there's no point in responding to such posts - it just means
that those who have killfiled the originator end up seeing at least
parts of his/her posts anyway, even though they'd decided they didn't
want to.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lewis: ... d'you think there's a god?
Morse: ... There are times when I wish to god there was one. (Inspector Morse.)
  #33  
Old August 10th 18, 08:26 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"NY" wrote in
:

"Tim" wrote in message
. 28...
Just try it! If you don't like it, you can always fall back to the
old one. Just keep a copy of the old version.

Ditto. He could aluse the portable versions.


VLC's installer and distributor are still very responsible. Just
download the installer package directly from **official** website.
No mess will be left behind under normal operation.


I found that VLC later than V2.1.5 (eg 2.2.4) had a problem playing
.mpg and .dvr-ms files of off-air broadcasts (.wtv and .ts files were
fine), whereas 2.1.5 is fine. I've left my PC on that, because it was
a major hassle uninstalling the newer, broken version to put back the
older one: any customised settings had to be re-entered. I've not
plucked up the courage to try even newer versions like 3.0.3. I
suppose I should try it.

This is for 720x576 (European standard) on Windows 7 using the 64-bit
VLC. I think the error was that playback was blocky and it stuttered,
with parts of one frame showing through onto another.

I suppose I could have converted all the affected recordings to .wtv.
It was only older ones that I recorded using Windows Vista's Windows
Media Centre (as .dvr-ms) or some proprietary recording software (as
.mpg) that came with a DVB-T adaptor; anything recorded with Window
7's WMC (as .wtv) or with NextPVR (as .ts) was fine.


I use WinX HD Video Converter to convert all my files to mp4. I bought my
version, but if you get on their newsletter, every so often they will give
away a free version with license, but without free updates. I used to use
Freemake, but they started putting their headers on the files unless you
paid to upgrade to the Pro version. I used Handbrake for a while too, but
one of the versions got a little squirrely, so I quit.

I have converted NTSC and PAL format files to mp4s with no problem, so it
might be something worth looking into.
  #34  
Old August 10th 18, 09:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
😉 Good Guy 😉
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,483
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On 10/08/2018 20:26, Tim wrote:
so it
might be something worth looking into.



But you don't have sufficient intelligence to look into it. Your
parents must be regretting not to abort you.


--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

  #35  
Old August 10th 18, 11:26 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In message , Tim
writes:
"NY" wrote in
:

[]
This is for 720x576 (European standard) on Windows 7 using the 64-bit


Makes a pleasant change to see someone call it "European standard"
rather than "PAL" (which strictly is only to do with the colour system,
not the resolution, unlike NTSC which is both).

VLC. I think the error was that playback was blocky and it stuttered,
with parts of one frame showing through onto another.


Smearing?

I suppose I could have converted all the affected recordings to .wtv.
It was only older ones that I recorded using Windows Vista's Windows
Media Centre (as .dvr-ms) or some proprietary recording software (as
.mpg) that came with a DVB-T adaptor; anything recorded with Window
7's WMC (as .wtv) or with NextPVR (as .ts) was fine.


I use WinX HD Video Converter to convert all my files to mp4. I bought my
version, but if you get on their newsletter, every so often they will give
away a free version with license, but without free updates. I used to use
Freemake, but they started putting their headers on the files unless you
paid to upgrade to the Pro version. I used Handbrake for a while too, but
one of the versions got a little squirrely, so I quit.


Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most of
the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for audio?

I have converted NTSC and PAL format files to mp4s with no problem, so it
might be something worth looking into.


See above re PAL (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn.
  #36  
Old August 11th 18, 01:58 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:


Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most
of the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for
audio?

I have converted NTSC and PAL format files to mp4s with no problem, so
it might be something worth looking into.


See above re PAL (-:


I have not noticed any degredation doing file conversions, but I am
basically measuring with Mark I eyeball, so precision is probably low.

All video file formats can be and usually are compressed in some fashion.
Depending on the compression method used it can be lossless or lossy. A
data stream using lossy compression has already thrown away some
information, and as such is already degraded from the original. Transcoding
from one lossy format to another will lose some information, the amount of
the loss will depend on how lossy the compressions used are. In this it is
similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.

..ts files are interesting creatures. The actual video/audio data is
contained in a program stream (PS) within the Transport Stream (ts)
container. Again, if the video source was compressed with a lossy codec,
then transcoding will likely result in some degredation. My only experience
with .ts files has been time-shifting programs from my local PBS station.
Since that station splits its channel into four subchannels, there is
probably some signal degredation for each sub channel at the station. Since
I normally store my video files with 720p resolution, the signal quality is
fine for me. I record using Haupage hardware and software, and I noticed
that the .ts files the software produces are significantly larger than the
..mp4 files I transcode them to. I don't know if that is a result of data
loss or just the dropping of information in the .ts stream not needed for
the actual video.

Sorry for the long epistle. When I try to explain things I tend to get very
precise so as to ward off any misunderstandings of my message.

TL;DR Yes there probably is some degredation, but unless you are viewing on
a large screen TV it will probably not be noticable.
  #37  
Old August 11th 18, 03:56 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most of
the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for audio?


Movies are analyzed in the frequency domain.
High frequency content is removed to reduce
video size (the human eye doesn't need that
detail). When combined with temporal
compression (IPB frames, deltas between frames),
a compression ratio of 100 is possible.

Lossless compression amounts to around 2x or 3x,
yielding a tiny saving. HuffUV is an example of
a lossless video compressor. That's the one I use
for captures that have come from a WinTV card.

Those aren't the only possibilities, but cover
a good deal of it. Cinepak is one of the few
codecs that doesn't use frequency analysis, and
uses a kind of "divide and conquer" compression
method. There was a single web page, that had
a decent animation of the algo at work, which
I thought was pretty neat at the time. I've lost
the link.

Paul
  #38  
Old August 11th 18, 04:13 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

(And thanks Paul as well.)

In message , Tim
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:


Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most
of the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for
audio?

[]
I have not noticed any degredation doing file conversions, but I am
basically measuring with Mark I eyeball, so precision is probably low.

All video file formats can be and usually are compressed in some fashion.
Depending on the compression method used it can be lossless or lossy. A
data stream using lossy compression has already thrown away some
information, and as such is already degraded from the original. Transcoding
from one lossy format to another will lose some information, the amount of
the loss will depend on how lossy the compressions used are. In this it is
similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.

[]
Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!

For example, I know there are lossless, for example, _rotations_ for
JPEG, and lossless crop (well, obviously a crop loses data, but you know
what I mean!). IrfanView - or possibly one of the plugins for it; I tend
to think of the combination as just IrfanView - offers lossless JPEG
crop and rotation. And .mp3 can I believe be cut losslessly provided you
do it at block boundaries - I think mp3directcut does this.

Sorry for the long epistle. When I try to explain things I tend to get very
precise so as to ward off any misunderstandings of my message.


No, not at all! I love precision. Even if (as often in Paul's
explanations) I get lost, I'd far rather have such precision. I think
Paul is similarly conscientious, and I try to be too.

TL;DR Yes there probably is some degredation, but unless you are viewing on
a large screen TV it will probably not be noticable.


I've generally found XVID mpeg-4 - with the default settings VirtualDub
uses - a good compromise.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If a cluttered desk is characteristic of a cluttered mind, what does an empty
desk mean ?
  #39  
Old August 11th 18, 05:50 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!


The "formats" part can be broken down into two pieces.

The outside part is the "container".
..mkv , .mov , .avi are containers

Inside the container are video and audio codecs.

You might find cases where two containers are
"close enough in class or origin" to use the same
video and audio codecs.

You can move a video stream and an audio stream,
from one container to another container, without
re-compressing. That's because the compressing is
done at the stream level. The container information
is relatively small by comparison.

Now, if you're converting an MPEG2 video to MPEG4,
you would expect the details of the compression
method to be different. Because one method has
a higher compression ratio than the other, and
preserves quality to a different extent. One method
might have extra steps the other method doesn't
have. Even if they both worked in the frequency
domain, the size of the macroblocks might be
different.

Yes, it's now possible to splice movies on keyframe
boundaries, without invoking re-compression. When
I made my little Cinepak video, splicing there was
"free", and making the final video from "chunks"
went as fast as the disk drive could go (200MB/sec).

*******

If you want some fun, you can use "ffprobe" from
the ffmpeg package, and it breaks down a movie
into the constituent "packets". There might be
a 12K video packet (a keyframe), then three
sound packets, then an intermediate video frame
smaller in size, and so on. You can dump the
packets, and process the packet size and video
packet frame type, and then plot the values
and see the "cadence" of a GOP (Group Of Pictures).
So maybe every 12th frame is larger than the rest,
and in the intermediate frames, some are smaller
than others.

And by using ffprobe, you can have a look for yourself.

Popular GOP values are 12 and 15, with the max
value being 600 (not all that practical). The
choices of 12 and 15, are about half a second each,
and that's the temporal resolution you can expect
for splicing without recompression. It means, you
might need a static scene, or perhaps a fade out,
a fade with enough width, to be able to pick out
the keyframe and splice to the keyframe in another
fade in.

But in practical situations, the answer is probably
no. it's a hard thing, to avoid generational loss.
You can't expect to "get lucky" at everything you
try. Occasionally, you will be pleasantly surprised
at the speed a step goes in your process. To be
followed by two hours of agony when the very next
step needs full conversion.

Paul
  #40  
Old August 11th 18, 03:47 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Stephen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 04:13:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

(And thanks Paul as well.)

In message , Tim
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:


Are these assorted video conversions lossless, or is there (possibly
only theoretical) degradation at each conversion, like there is most
of the time when going JPEG to JPEG for images or mp3 to mp3 for
audio?

[]

The original capture format is "not lossy"
- in the sense that you have all the info you are ever going to get.
- however that is really a theoretical thing, since sensors are not
ideal, and there will be colour and brightness distortins, or effects
from adjacent pixels, timing errors.

Once you have a source then it can be compressed.

I have not noticed any degredation doing file conversions, but I am
basically measuring with Mark I eyeball, so precision is probably low.

All video file formats can be and usually are compressed in some fashion.
Depending on the compression method used it can be lossless or lossy. A
data stream using lossy compression has already thrown away some
information, and as such is already degraded from the original. Transcoding
from one lossy format to another will lose some information, the amount of
the loss will depend on how lossy the compressions used are. In this it is
similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.


Thanks. I was just wondering if, once the initial compression had been
done, any of the various formats can be converted into each other
without _further_ loss. Sounds like you don't know - fair enough, nor do
I, hence my asking the question!

There will always be some further distortion in signal since the
compression already done will have added compromises in signal from
the original, so you are further from an "ideal picture" starting
point.

Broadcasters usually have to put a signal through multiple transforms
especially for "contribution" where lots of bits are put together
before sending it out to "distribution" where heavy compression is
needed.
So they prefer to use one where multiple passes cause limited added
distortion
- last time I was involved the favorite at 1 place was JPEG2000 - the
wavelet oriented schemes seem to degrade more gracefully and survive
multiple passes with less overall impact.

A heavily compressed stream being recompressed to a different format
seems to generate more artifacts - ie the 2 compression systems can
interact to give more artefacts and distrotion in the resulting output

For example, I know there are lossless, for example, _rotations_ for
JPEG, and lossless crop (well, obviously a crop loses data, but you know
what I mean!). IrfanView - or possibly one of the plugins for it; I tend
to think of the combination as just IrfanView - offers lossless JPEG
crop and rotation. And .mp3 can I believe be cut losslessly provided you
do it at block boundaries - I think mp3directcut does this.

Sorry for the long epistle. When I try to explain things I tend to get very
precise so as to ward off any misunderstandings of my message.


No, not at all! I love precision. Even if (as often in Paul's
explanations) I get lost, I'd far rather have such precision. I think
Paul is similarly conscientious, and I try to be too.

TL;DR Yes there probably is some degredation, but unless you are viewing on
a large screen TV it will probably not be noticable.


I've generally found XVID mpeg-4 - with the default settings VirtualDub
uses - a good compromise.


--
Stephen
  #41  
Old August 11th 18, 05:49 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On 8/11/2018 10:47 PM, Stephen wrote:
[]

The original capture format is "not lossy"
- in the sense that you have all the info you are ever going to get.
- however that is really a theoretical thing, since sensors are not
ideal, and there will be colour and brightness distortins, or effects
from adjacent pixels, timing errors.

Once you have a source then it can be compressed.


But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?

BTW, I am thinking about court use....

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #42  
Old August 11th 18, 05:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?


film is more lossy than digital.
  #43  
Old August 11th 18, 05:54 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default film vs CMOS

On 8/12/2018 12:50 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?


film is more lossy than digital.


I don't know much about photography films. And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

But isn't film molecular level?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #44  
Old August 11th 18, 06:10 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:

But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras?


film is more lossy than digital.


I don't know much about photography films.


clearly.

And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!


yep.

But isn't film molecular level?


everything is.
  #45  
Old August 11th 18, 06:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default film vs CMOS

On 8/12/2018 1:10 AM, nospam wrote:

I don't know much about photography films.


clearly.

And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!


yep.

But isn't film molecular level?


everything is.


Is your claim based on traditional size of film, which is 135?

But why can't we use a bigger film then? Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.