mirkosp wrote:I thought MakeMKV could be used for DVDs as well, no?
mirkosp wrote:DGIndexNV supports MKV too, otherwise I wouldn't be suggesting MakeMKV in the first place. Interlaced AVC is troublesome to handle without DGDecNV, same goes for interlaced MPEG-2, though regular DGIndex would be enough for that assuming a supported container (plain DGIndex doesn't take MKV after all).
mirkosp wrote:>DGDecNV is very glitchy
What are you smoking, exactly?
You are probably thinking of the ffmpeg based DGAVCDec, which was indeed bad and support for it was dropped. The one I'm talking about is the NVidia CUDA one, which is frame accurate with all supported sources, regardless of whether the content is progressive or interlaced.
Also, I will have to say that FFMS2 is a bad idea for direct BD AVC (and not just that), and remuxing isn't a solution to fix the problem, since it's not related to the container, hence why I suggest L-Smash Works now; here's a more indepth explanation (keep in mind that ffms2 relies directly on libav). For progressive content, L-Smash Works is a safe option, for interlaced content, only DGDecNV is truly safe.
So I can't exactly recommend that to everyone since all computers do not have Nvidia graphics cards.NGDecNV Website wrote:DGDecNV is a decoder/frameserver for AVC, MPEG2, and VC1 streams that runs on the GPU of Nvidia graphics cards that support CUDA video decoding.
mirkosp wrote:15 bucks ain't going to kill anybody.
DGAVCDec was bad, however issues with DGDecNV are likely due to misuse or misunderstanding something, as the software behaved correctly with all the sources I've put it through, including interlaced AVC Transport Streams, interlaced AVC BDs, MPEG-2 BDs and VC-1 BDs. As these are all set-in-stone standards for the end user, a hardware decoder tailored specifically for decoding these sources is the most reliable way to deal with them, hence why DGDecNV is the best option when possible, even with the price tag attached to it.
Clearly it's not always necessary, particularly with progressive sources now that there is L-Smash Works, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its usage, nor that it's glitchy, as it's quite the opposite.
What that is true, it does not mean it's free from errors, and if there happens to be an error in the stream (in case of TS streams) some hardware decoders do not handle that that well. Obviously on Blu-ray you shouldn't have that kind of issue.mirkosp wrote:It's not just any hardware. In order to work it just needs an Nvidia GPU with VP2 or better. As long as it has that, the decoded results will be identical regardless of the specific hardware.
Where did I ignore this? All I stated was there is room for error based on the software's compatibility with the hardware device based on how the system uses it with the drivers.mirkosp wrote:Moreover, you are overlooking an important fact: decoding of AVC is specifically standardized (MPEG-2 decoding can differ since the standard doesn't state exactly how the decoded result should look), so regardless of software or hardware decoder, as long as a given Profile@Level is supported, the decoded result has to be bit identical in order for the implementation to be standard compliant. Any further difference is not due to decoding but further processing; for instance, dithering in case of higher bitdepth content which needs to be brought to 8bit, or debanding or whatever other processing a filter AFTER the decode would be doing.
I don't really see the point in encouraging a highly limited way of handling footage for the small percentage of time in which it proves to be more useful (interlaced AVC footage), considering a very small amount of content will tend to fall into that category to begin with (especially if you don't bother to mention the fact that it is limited to Nvidia hardware as well). Additionally I'm not going to tell someone to go out and buy a video card so they can use a method to decode the footage just because it can handle the 1% of footage they will encounter that is interlaced.mirkosp wrote:So yes, hardware decoders and software decoders will in fact do an IDENTICAL job at decoding, otherwise something is very wrong with their implementation of the standard. The only difference would be in the speed they'd be running at, which of course depends on the hardware the user has at disposal.
I never said it was BETTER, but it definitely is more convenient to use (especially if you don't have an Nvidia graphics card).mirkosp wrote:And so since interlaced content is rare, automatically FFMS2 is the best option to suggest even when L-Smash Works is out there, free for all, and better? I still don't get that.
One thing is me defending the best option out there, another is suggesting the third one when there is a free and better close second, now.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests