Hey guys what's the best software to playback mkv files in 720/1080p formats! vlc for once doesn't quite hit the spot :)
regards
chip
Printable View
Hey guys what's the best software to playback mkv files in 720/1080p formats! vlc for once doesn't quite hit the spot :)
regards
chip
A video player.
The other option is not to change video player software, but to install an updated codec pack.
media player classic is a popular choice chipsteruk. although the other options are nearly endless.
Thanks guys
You may not have to change your video player. Installing CoreAVC could help - it's an extremely fast decoder for this sort of stuff. If you have a catch-all codec or pack installed, remember to disable it for H.264/AVC so that CoreAVC can come into effect.
^^best answer. :) There was a time when codec packs used to contain just about everything -- free and non-free alike. It seems that K-Lite and CCCP had to avoid the proprietary stuff a few years back, but I wonder if there are any other all-in-one codec packs that contain CoreAVC?Quote:
Originally Posted by anon
I make a point to avoid CoreAVC. I've only put it into use for 1 computer, and that's only because the performance of 1080p 30fps (HD camera) was so borderline, and hardware acceleration wasn't possible. Only problem is it crashes Explorer when trying to generate a thumbnail of an MKV. As much as I've tested other decoders, I always come right back to ffmpeg-multithread and ffmpeg DXVA. I'm not at all impressed with the newer LAV splitter/decoder.
best players for 720p/1080p
Media Player Classic Home Cinema
Mirillis splash pro
no additional codecs need installed
I use the details view in Explorer, so I haven't faced that problem. If you can live without thumbnails, you can use this tool to disable generation. It has other cool functions, also.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
OK, since I'm already logged in to see the above URL (free-codecs.com/download/codec_tweak_tool.htm) I'll just keep going ...
I've got to wonder why the functionality of something like Codec Tweak Tool was not built into the operating system (even as a Tweak-UI type add-on) as dealing with codecs --like software drivers-- has always been a bit dodgy.
One of my biggest complaints is finding only HD-quality releases (which don't work well -if at all- on old computers) so I'm wondering what the best solution would be to get something less processor-hungry. Maybe a comparison chart of codecs resource efficiency? Or is there anything that will "down-convert" (without re-encoding) a HD video to make it watchable on weak hardware?
There is a difference between old hardware and weak hardware though. For instance I can play HD videos on both my phone (1 GHz Hummingbird) and on my 1 GHz dual core laptop (AMD C-50). Hardware decoding makes all this possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
About your question on whether there is something you can do to the file to make it playable with lesser resources WITHOUT transcoding, and the short answer would be no. Now that I've crushed all your hopes, let me present a recommendation that would oppose that no. If the file is an MKV, you can try muxing the audio and video stream into an MP4 container and see if that helps. I'm assuming that you also have an older graphics adapter which wouldn't support hardware acceleration anyway.
EDIT: The tools you would need for that are MP4Box and possibly MKVextract. I don't use these tools on their own, they are implemented into MeGUI and Mediacoder, and would take a little while getting familiar with to perform these specific tasks.
Also the fact that virtually all high-end video cards in the pre-HD era were optimized for 3-D video games rather than 2-D video movies.
What I was thinking of was a software video player (or tweak) that would, for instance, skip every other frame, or skip every other pixel. Essentially the video equivalent of a printer's "draft mode". At least in concept, something like that should not be very hard to program.
Conceptually that would be sort of difficult given the nature of how the codec works. With almost all the frames being differentially coded with respect to other frames, that's where the work is. Figuring out which frames to properly skip would seem to add more work in the chain rather than reducing it. Given that most frames in the types of video we're talking about are comprised of B-frames (they rely on information from both earlier and later frames), you couldn't really start eliminating frames. So what I'm saying is that the video would have to be encoded in a way where there's information in the bitstream aiding in that decision process (so that reference frames still get processed). Since they are not encoded in a way to tell the player which frames are safe to skip, any frame and/or pixel elimination would start leading to deprecated playback even if it did work without crashing, to which I ask, what's the point of grabbing an HD x264 video when there are XVID alternatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
When it comes down to each encode, playback performance depends on a number of things. The more optimized or efficient the encode, the more processing required to decode it. Videos with CABAC, and large number of reference frames and consecutive b-frames in addition to being a large resolution will require some processing power. If instead, the video was encoded at higher bitrates, using CAVLC instead of CABAC, < 4 Ref frames, < 4 consecutive b-frames, it would be much easier to playback on lower systems and you can still get all that visual quality you're probably seeking.
None of this might be of any help to you, but then again I'm not exactly sure if you're looking for any help. Actually, I think I've forgotten your question completely. Why would an encoding option be completely out of the picture for you?
For many titles there are no xvid (or low-resolution x264 MP4) alternatives, so anyone using old hardware is simply S.O.L. -- and sadly this trend keeps getting worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
Music releases are similar. I prefer MP3 to FLAC, but often only FLAC is available. (but in this case I can easily live with it)
Hardware that strains and stumbles processing HD video is going to be a poor choice for re-encoding as well -- which anyway, takes time to complete even on fast PCs. Another point is that it can be hard to [initially] tell the difference between a 1080p and a fake when they both play exactly the same on old hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
It's this "HD is God" mindset that baffles me more than anything else. I can understand the importance of high resolution when dealing with movies that are primarily visual in nature and use high-detail special effects. But 1080 resolution is a practically worthless "enhancement" on a lot of shows like news programs, radio shows, and interviews that can be watched in low resolution "thumbnail" windows just as well. But maybe some viewers insist on being able to count the pores on a person's face -- I don't know.
I'm just glad that YouTube and other video sites has low-res versions of all videos.
Sure it might take a little while on a low end machine, but encoding at standard resolution with some settings optimized for speedy encoding won't take an eternity either. I'm more baffled by this lack of content in XVID you speak of. I know that standard x264 has yet to come around, but I've only found that if no other version is available, there is at least an XVID. I wouldn't mind seeing it die off, but only if it's replaced with x264 SD.Quote:
Originally Posted by zotFor many titles there are no xvid (or low-resolution x264 MP4) alternatives, so anyone using old hardware is simply S.O.L. -- and sadly this trend keeps getting worse.
Music releases are similar. I prefer MP3 to FLAC, but often only FLAC is available. (but in this case I can easily live with it)
Hardware that strains and stumbles processing HD video is going to be a poor choice for re-encoding as well -- which anyway, takes time to complete even on fast PCs. Another point is that it can be hard to [initially] tell the difference between a 1080p and a fake when they both play exactly the same on old hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
It's this "HD is God" mindset that baffles me more than anything else. I can understand the importance of high resolution when dealing with movies that are primarily visual in nature and use high-detail special effects. But 1080 resolution is a practically worthless "enhancement" on a lot of shows like news programs, radio shows, and interviews that can be watched in low resolution "thumbnail" windows just as well. But maybe some viewers insist on being able to count the pores on a person's face -- I don't know.
I'm just glad that YouTube and other video sites has low-res versions of all videos.
1080p is also pretty pointless if your display is under 55". I have no observable complaints of 720p, so I tend to stick with that exclusively. I get annoyed if 1080p is the only transparent copy available.
I would agree that divx/xvid has been by far the most common release format, especially among Scene groups, but I could also provide a long list of titles that were (at least at the time) only available in the much-larger DVD or x264 format. Many are old movies released by non-scene hobbyists.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
To name just one example, try looking up NZBs for the 1962 film "How the West Was Won" - starting with the oldest (1200 day) retention. Notice how it took several years before someone finally posted the first XVID copy of that film.
Or try the 1985 film Emerald Forest. The title has an unwatchable mega-pixelated 1-CD divx release, and a DVD-R release. So basically no (decent) divx/xvid to be found.
Older titles, I could see that. I'm not really wanting to ask another obvious question, but what's wrong with the DVD-R?Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
How about current TV shows as well? Or non-Hollywood films? Sometimes I find that the only copy posted is a 720 x264, and occasionally even a lone 1080 release. Many categories of content that were not available in DIVX - not just "older titles" ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
Download speed. Streaming ability. Drive space. Also the fact that many set-top DVD players now support common "pirate" video file formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
I hope I answered all your questions, mjmacky - I was starting to wonder if they would end. :P
I did have follow ups, but I could see no end in sight so I just stopped altogether. There are certain types of conversations that work interactively/dynamically, and some that work in delayed response/forum/email, this was more fit for the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
I have never been a fan of the "chatroom" approach to forum discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
People who rattle off rapid-fire questions without spending even a second to think first -- and find that the answers are right in front of them, plain and obvious.
But maybe that's just how some people think of "small talk" -- asking questions that don't need to be asked, just because they could not think of anything better to say and felt they had to say something to break the silence. :pinch:
I might agree with this statement during the years 2001 - 2003, before DVD-R releases became popular, and long before Blu-Ray & H264 rips largely supplanted DVD releases. But it always seemed that the "unwashed masses" preferred other video formats like WMV and Real Video, and sometimes I had no other choice of download.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
But back on topic ... I'm wondering which video player is best for creating "special effects" - in particular playing video backwards. I remember Power DVD did a fine job of this for "standard" video formats, but I could never get it to work with "pirate" (compressed) formats. Does anyone else here ever play video backwards for any reason?
I know ffdshow has a lot of post processing effects, though I don't recall playing in reverse as one of them. That can be accomplished by frameserving though, which would require you to play it through an AviSynth script. I don't have the particular script syntax on hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by zot
Now with all the formals out of the way, what the what?! Are you trying to see the devil or something?
Thanks for fucking off you ignorant shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorjhon
After a glance at his post history, I share your feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyThanks for fucking off you ignorant shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorjhon
i think someone should make a guide for madvr which offer significantly better quality but it need more cpu power
I wholeheartedly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stabber
There is a guide over at coalgirls (anime site)
http://coalgirls.wakku.to/?page_id=4611
if anyone wants to use madvr with mpc-hc