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
  #61  
Old August 12th 18, 10:22 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[...]

For example, I know there are lossless, for example, _rotations_ for
JPEG,


For any decent renderer, JPEG images do not need to be rotated,
because the orientation can be set by bits in the EXIF part of the JPEG
file.

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.


IrfanView is an example of such a renderer:

Options - Properties/Settings... - JPG / PCD / GIF - JPEG-Load: -
tick 'Auto-rotate image according to EXIF info (if available)'.

I don't know if IrfanView can 'rotate' a picture by changing just the
EXIF info and not touching the rest of the file. It probably can, but I
didn't find it straight-away (I use other software to 'rotate' JPEG
pictures).
Ads
  #62  
Old August 12th 18, 10:22 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.windows7.general,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" -- "Mental State"?

On 8/12/2018 5:18 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 5:14 PM, Steve Hough wrote:
nospam was thinking very hard :

what if you stopped posting rubbish?


Why not stop feeding the troll?


Switching topic to mental state...

If you don't wanna continue to answer, just say so. You can also throw
me to Google Search.


I wanna remind you that this is not your company, definitely not a court
room. This is just a causal chat. Your honor and income will not be
affected.

Do you always do that when you were still in schools? Oh well... amazed
me. Maybe I am too lucky not studying in your schools.

--
@~@ 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
  #63  
Old August 12th 18, 10:55 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,sci.electronics.basics,alt.comp.freeware
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default how original is an original image?

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" wrote in newskn96p$qar$1
@toylet.eternal-september.org:

On 8/12/2018 2:08 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mr. Man-wai
Chang wrote:


But how do you determine how close a digital image get to the

original
without a reference? You have to have a control as in experiment!


the reference is the original


In a court trial, how do you do that? You cannot take the physical
reality into a court... there is also the time factor. Whatever

happened
in reality might not repeat itself before the court.

Example scenerio:

I'm out with my trusty movie/video camera, and happen to capture a driver
running a red light/stop sign and striking your car. I only discover this
when I receive the file back from developing/watch the video. Being the
good citizen that I am, I contact the police and tell them about the
evidence I have. `They come and take said evidence/or make a copy of said
evidence. I sign a sworn statement concerning how I optained the
original. The evidence is placed into a sealed bag/container, and I sign
as the originator/owner, and the person receiving the evidence signs as
the one receiving it from me. They then sign it into the evidence storage
at their office. Anyone making a copy or otherwise having that evidence
in their possession outside of the evidence storage area has to sign for
the original and why they had access/possession of it. This process
continues until the evidence is used in court, if it is. Along with the
evidence comes the 'chain of evidence possession' documenting its origin
and any and all accesses to it up to the time it is presented as evidence
in court. This is the accepted means of documenting how the evidence was
created and accessed the veracity and and protection of the evidence all
along the process. If there is a question of the accuracy of any copies
made the 'chain of possession' documentation and expert testimony is used
to resolve it.

Any analog process of duplication incurrs some loss.
A digital proccess of dublication of a digital original can occur without
loss, depending on the specifics of the process used to create the
'duplicate'.
  #64  
Old August 12th 18, 01:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Paul" wrote in message
news
Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:50:41 -0400, Paul wrote:

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.

SNIP

Hi Paul, I know what you wanted to say but that last part didn't come
out right. There are no codecs inside the container. That would be quite
inefficient. ;-)

Otherwise, excellent summary.


Yeah, that should have been "video and audio streams".


I think what he meant were "video and audio streams, compressed with codecs
that the decoding device (PC, TV, PVR, dedicated box, etc) will already
have".

The crucial thing is that the container can contain streams which are
compressed with various codecs, so you can't infer the codec from the
container. For example, .ts files recorded from broadcast TV can be either
MPEG2/MPEG (video/audio) or else H264/AAC(LATM) (video/audio) depending
whether they are recorded from a DVB-T or DVB-T2 multiplex. Likewise for
..wtv (WIndows Media Centre) files. I think .mpg files are always encoded
with MPEG2 encording; I've never seen any that are H264. However I have seen
high-def (1920x1080) compressed with MPEG2, even if H264 is far more common.

  #65  
Old August 12th 18, 01:25 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
knuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default film vs CMOS

On 8/11/2018 11:17 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 8/12/2018 1:19 AM, nospam wrote:

Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?


always the same size format. otherwise it's not a valid comparison.


In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!

What if... a big what if.... all CMOS on Earth were fried by solar
storm? Maybe that explained why a man is up there in ISS.

This is sort of an answer to the original question.

quote: "The resolution of film images depends upon the area of film used
to record the image (35 mm, medium format or large format) and the film
speed. Estimates of a photograph's resolution taken with a 35 mm film
camera vary. More information may be recorded if a fine-grain film is
used, while the use of poor-quality optics or coarse-grained film may
yield lower image resolution. A 36 mm × 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed
film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million
pixels,[6] or approximately 23,000 pixels per square mm. "


In my experience, my 12 mega pixel Olympus camera gives me pictures as
good as my Old Miranda Camera with a good slide film.


With a chemical camera the resolution is limited to the grain size in a
film. However with a print the quality of the paper the images is
printed on will also affect the resolution in the print

With a digital in my opinion has a large range of light conditions under
which you can get good images.

With all of the above, in both types of camera it is the lens system.
Poor quality lens gives poor quality images regardless of the film or
CMOS. As an example I have a cheap phone with a 1.3 megapixel camera.
It gives me consistently better pictures than my tablet which has a 2
megapixel CMOS. This is evident in that with the phone I can easily get
readable images of printed pages, but impossible with the tablet.

In other words with lens systems you can not make a silk purse out of of
a sow's ear, no matter how you process.
  #66  
Old August 12th 18, 02:42 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default film vs CMOS

"knuttle" wrote in message
news
With a chemical camera the resolution is limited to the grain size in a
film. However with a print the quality of the paper the images is printed
on will also affect the resolution in the print

With a digital in my opinion has a large range of light conditions under
which you can get good images.

With all of the above, in both types of camera it is the lens system. Poor
quality lens gives poor quality images regardless of the film or CMOS. As
an example I have a cheap phone with a 1.3 megapixel camera. It gives me
consistently better pictures than my tablet which has a 2 megapixel CMOS.
This is evident in that with the phone I can easily get readable images of
printed pages, but impossible with the tablet.


The other thing with digital is that the quality of the image is affected by
the post-processing and the amount of noise that the sensor generates. Noise
increases with increased amplification (higher ISO setting) and with reduced
pixel size: a phone with a small sensor (so each pixel is smaller) will
produce more noise than an SLR with a larger sensor with the same
resolution.

Often this is masked by post-processing which manifests itself as localised
blurring of detail.

My SLR at 3200 ASA produces a less noisy picture than my phone camera at a
much lower ISO setting. The SLR's lens is also better, but that's a separate
issue. One other factor is that phone cameras are often a fixed focal
length, so if you zoom in you are using a progressively smaller area of the
sensor which increases noise and (even more so) decreases resolution - just
like making a print from a progressively smaller part of the negative.

Digital also has the advantage that it is much easier to correct for
different colours of light (sunlight / cloud / daylight fluorescent / warm
white fluorescent / LED / tungsten), either manually with presets or
automatically. And the sensitivity of the sensor doesn't change at very
short or very long exposures: with film you had to make corrections both for
exposure and colour cast due to "reciprocity failure" whereby the normal
rule of "reduce shutter speed by one stop requires opening up aperture by
one stop" no longer applies. With negative film it wasn't too much of an
issue because neg film can produce a usable print from a negative with more
under or over exposure, and colour cast can be corrected at printing,
whereas slide film has much less exposure latitude and has no opportunity
for correcting colour cast, apart from by copying onto a new slide with a
filter in place, or by scanning to digital.

I was surprised at how much correction scanning does allow. I took some
night-time photos of an illuminated building and grossly overexposed (I was
guessing). The slides are very pale. When I scanned them (about 30 years
later!), I could correct for this increasing the contrast so the darkest
pale tones became nearly black and the lightest, almost clear film, became
white. Given that exposure at night is very subjective anyway (there is no
one "correct" exposure) this was good enough to produce better copies than
the original. If I'd been shooting on digital, I'd have seen the results of
my guesses immediately and corrected accordingly, either by looking at the
result or looking at the histogram (proportion of pixels with each
brightness - should look *very roughly* like a symmetrical bell-shaped
curve, assuming a typical scene, which night pictures often aren't because
of bright lights or shadows which are outside the range of what you want to
reproduce well (ie it's much more acceptable have some parts which are
totally black or bleached maxed-out white).

  #67  
Old August 12th 18, 02:57 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 , NY
wrote:

The other thing with digital is that the quality of the image is affected by
the post-processing and the amount of noise that the sensor generates.


film is also affected by the processing and also the type of film.

Noise
increases with increased amplification (higher ISO setting) and with reduced
pixel size: a phone with a small sensor (so each pixel is smaller) will
produce more noise than an SLR with a larger sensor with the same
resolution.


film is similar. high iso films have more grain, while smaller formats
need to be enlarged more for the same size print.
  #68  
Old August 12th 18, 11:09 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Brian Gregory[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On 11/08/2018 17:50, 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 bet there are many film cameras that are way way better than my first
ever webcam - 320x240 resolution fixed focus. Looked horrible in
anything except bright sunlight. Luckily is was cheap so I wasn't that
bothered. Nevertheless IT WAS DIGITAL.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).
  #69  
Old August 12th 18, 11:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Brian Gregory[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On 06/08/2018 19:10, mike wrote:
Win 7-32.
I tried updating to Version 3.something and had playback issues.

Version 2.2.8 is reported to be the last version to support .wtv
files.* That seems to work.* Probably a good idea to archive
that version if you use media center.


Many of my *.wtv files play fine in VLC 3.0.3 (64 bit version).
There are a few where the sound doesn't work but I can't work out
exactly why it doesn't work. I think they are files where I've had
trouble finding much at all that can deal with the sound correctly.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).
  #70  
Old August 12th 18, 11:27 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Brian Gregory[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

On 09/08/2018 22:38, Tim wrote:
If for some reason you don't like 3.0.3 I still have 2.2.8 and 3.0.0 on my
hard drive.


Old versions of VLC are he
https://get.videolan.org/vlc/

All the way back to around 2004 IIRC.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).
  #71  
Old August 12th 18, 11:36 PM 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?

Brian Gregory wrote:
On 11/08/2018 17:50, 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 bet there are many film cameras that are way way better than my first
ever webcam - 320x240 resolution fixed focus. Looked horrible in
anything except bright sunlight. Luckily is was cheap so I wasn't that
bothered. Nevertheless IT WAS DIGITAL.


If you have a static scene, and you run the webcam in
"picture" mode instead of "video" mode, you can actually
take two pictures with a bad webcam, and average them
in Photoshop as (A+B)/2 and the sensor noise will be
attenuated.

I did some pictures for a user manual that way. Shot
about 70 images, and averaged them to improve the
quality. It was before I got a digital camera.

In testing, averaging an excessive number of images
doesn't help. I tried for example, averaging
16 images in NIHimage, and it really doesn't help
all that much. But if you place your camera on a
tripod, and the scene is static, and you shoot
the two pictures one after the other, then
averaging the two pictures reduces the sensor noise.
The biggest improvement comes by using two images.

It still isn't digital camera quality, but at
least it's a small improvement.

Sony HAD sensors are better than your average
webcam. And you're not likely to get one for $10 :-)
Sony has no interest in supplying the $10 webcam
market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAD_CCD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_accumulation_diode

That's what you'd like to see in a webcam.

Paul
  #73  
Old August 13th 18, 03:13 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?

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[...]

For example, I know there are lossless, for example, _rotations_ for
JPEG,


For any decent renderer, JPEG images do not need to be rotated,
because the orientation can be set by bits in the EXIF part of the JPEG
file.

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.


IrfanView is an example of such a renderer:

Options - Properties/Settings... - JPG / PCD / GIF - JPEG-Load: -
tick 'Auto-rotate image according to EXIF info (if available)'.


That "(if available)" is the significant point. There are JPEG images
around that don't have that flag - either they predate its definition,
or the camera they were taken on did not have an orientation sensor.

I don't know if IrfanView can 'rotate' a picture by changing just the
EXIF info and not touching the rest of the file. It probably can, but I
didn't find it straight-away (I use other software to 'rotate' JPEG
pictures).


I've always _assumed_ IV's "lossless JPEG rotate" actually rearranged
the pixel data. (Could easily be established by turning _off_ the
auto-rotate setting, then trying such a rotate.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Easy reading is damned hard writing. -Nathaniel Hawthorne, writer (1804-1864)
  #74  
Old August 13th 18, 09:43 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"Paul" wrote in message
news

And what should happen, is .wtv files that are encrypted,
your options should be a lot more limited.



I've not found any WTV that seem to be encrypted - or at least, I've not
found any files that can't be played and edited with VLC and VideoReDo
respectively. That's for both SD (720x576x25) and HD (1920x1080x25), recored
from DVB-T and DVB-T2 in the UK.

Likewise for TS files recorded using NextPVR - no apparent encryption or
restrictions for SD or HD.

The only device that cripples HD is a dedicated PVR which has the ability to
export its recordings to TS format on a USB device. That option is enabled
for SD recordings but disabled (maybe due to copy-protection restrictions)
for HD recordings.

  #75  
Old August 13th 18, 01:13 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[...]

For example, I know there are lossless, for example, _rotations_ for
JPEG,


For any decent renderer, JPEG images do not need to be rotated,
because the orientation can be set by bits in the EXIF part of the JPEG
file.

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.


IrfanView is an example of such a renderer:

Options - Properties/Settings... - JPG / PCD / GIF - JPEG-Load: -
tick 'Auto-rotate image according to EXIF info (if available)'.


That "(if available)" is the significant point. There are JPEG images
around that don't have that flag - either they predate its definition,
or the camera they were taken on did not have an orientation sensor.


EXIF exists since the early 2000's, at least since 2003. AFAIK, EXIF
has always had "that flag". The only issues are if "that flag" has been
*set* or/and if "that flag" is *honoured* by the renderer.

Whether "that flag" is/can_be set by the camera is irrelevant to my
point. My point is that "that flag" makes it unneccesary to actually
rotate the data in the picture itself.

I don't know if IrfanView can 'rotate' a picture by changing just the
EXIF info and not touching the rest of the file. It probably can, but I
didn't find it straight-away (I use other software to 'rotate' JPEG
pictures).


I've always _assumed_ IV's "lossless JPEG rotate" actually rearranged
the pixel data. (Could easily be established by turning _off_ the
auto-rotate setting, then trying such a rotate.)


I think/assume that IrfanView can just set "that flag", but, as I
said, I haven't yet found how.

IrfanView is very powerful, but that also means that simple things are
sometimes hard to find/do.
 




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 01:51 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.