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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|