Is VLC 3.0.3 for Windows 7?

I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Wolf K

2018-08-05 23:12:51 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

VLC runs on Win7. Just install it and see how you like it.

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)

j***@astraweb.com

2018-08-05 23:17:08 UTC

Post by Wolf K

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

VLC runs on Win7. Just install it and see how you like it.

Thanks.

Paul in Houston TX

2018-08-05 23:50:55 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

My VLC 1.1.11 works just fine on 7/64. No reason for me to upgrade.

Ken Blake

2018-08-06 13:54:15 UTC

On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:50:55 -0500, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

My VLC 1.1.11 works just fine on 7/64. No reason for me to upgrade.

It's up to you of course. Working fine is always good. But until you
try a new version of something, you don't know whether it works even
better or what new features it has that you might like even better.

My recommendation is almost always to try the new version, but save
the installation file for the old one. If you don't like the new
version, go back to the old one.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-06 14:14:08 UTC

In message <***@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<***@invalid.news.com> writes:
[]

Post by Ken Blake
My recommendation is almost always to try the new version, but save
the installation file for the old one. If you don't like the new
version, go back to the old one.

That's what I like to do too. However, VLC doesn't make it easy, as it
offers to self-upgrade. That's fine the first time - you've got the
installation file you got to install it in the first place - but, if
that upgrade works (especially if it works better or has new features
you like), you stick with it - and _next_ upgrade, you don't have the
installation file for the second one to go back to if you don't like
_that_ upgrade for some reason.

I think you _do_, actually, but you don't know _where_ (and I don't
think it has the version in the filename if you _can_ find it).

Of course, you can always decline the offer to self-upgrade, and
manually fetch the latest complete installer. But that's tedious, and
there's also the concern that some settings (which you've carefully
made, and may not be sure how you did so) might be lost.

This applies of course to anything that offers to self-upgrade, not just
VLC.

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

The early worm gets the bird.

Shadow

2018-08-06 20:39:32 UTC

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 15:14:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Ken Blake
My recommendation is almost always to try the new version, but save
the installation file for the old one. If you don't like the new
version, go back to the old one.

That's what I like to do too. However, VLC doesn't make it easy, as it
offers to self-upgrade. That's fine the first time - you've got the
installation file you got to install it in the first place - but, if
that upgrade works (especially if it works better or has new features
you like), you stick with it - and _next_ upgrade, you don't have the
installation file for the second one to go back to if you don't like
_that_ upgrade for some reason.
I think you _do_, actually, but you don't know _where_ (and I don't
think it has the version in the filename if you _can_ find it).
Of course, you can always decline the offer to self-upgrade, and
manually fetch the latest complete installer. But that's tedious, and
there's also the concern that some settings (which you've carefully
made, and may not be sure how you did so) might be lost.

You can always find the old versions here:

http://download.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/

Just choose the version, and then the OS.
[]'s

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
This applies of course to anything that offers to self-upgrade, not just
VLC.

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-07 10:03:19 UTC

Post by Shadow
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 15:14:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Ken Blake
My recommendation is almost always to try the new version, but save
the installation file for the old one. If you don't like the new
version, go back to the old one.

I take back that particular point, in the case of VLC at least: as G.
Ross has pointed out, the downloaded filename _does_ show the version.
Although the point remains that, if you let VLC do the upgrade (as it
offers to), you don't know _where_ it has _put_ the installer file, or
whether it keeps it after installation (or even if it doesn't delete it,
has put it somewhere that will be purged eventually).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Of course, you can always decline the offer to self-upgrade, and
manually fetch the latest complete installer. But that's tedious, and
there's also the concern that some settings (which you've carefully
made, and may not be sure how you did so) might be lost.

http://download.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/
Just choose the version, and then the OS.
[]'s

But you have to know which version you want. If you've allowed it to
self-upgrade more than once, and the last one did something undesirable,
then unless you made a note of the version you had before the last
upgrade you (just) did, you don't _know_ what version you want.
(Good to know back versions _are_ available, though. [It'd be
interesting to see which ones people are fetching.])

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
This applies of course to anything that offers to self-upgrade, not just
VLC.

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

I don't see the requirement to upset people. ... There's enough to make fun of
without offending. - Ronnie Corbett, in Radio Times 6-12 August 2011.

G Ross

2018-08-06 21:29:05 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Ken Blake
My recommendation is almost always to try the new version, but save
the installation file for the old one. If you don't like the new
version, go back to the old one.

That's what I like to do too. However, VLC doesn't make it easy, as it
offers to self-upgrade. That's fine the first time - you've got the
installation file you got to install it in the first place - but, if
that upgrade works (especially if it works better or has new features
you like), you stick with it - and _next_ upgrade, you don't have the
installation file for the second one to go back to if you don't like
_that_ upgrade for some reason.
I think you _do_, actually, but you don't know _where_ (and I don't
think it has the version in the filename if you _can_ find it).
Of course, you can always decline the offer to self-upgrade, and
manually fetch the latest complete installer. But that's tedious, and
there's also the concern that some settings (which you've carefully
made, and may not be sure how you did so) might be lost.
This applies of course to anything that offers to self-upgrade, not just
VLC.

I keep the install file. There it is in my Downloads
folder--VLC-3.0.1-Win64.exe.
So it does show the version and that it is for windows 64 bit.

--
G Ross

Paul in Houston TX

2018-08-06 21:55:33 UTC

Post by Ken Blake
On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 18:50:55 -0500, Paul in Houston TX

Post by Paul in Houston TX

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

My VLC 1.1.11 works just fine on 7/64. No reason for me to upgrade.

It's up to you of course. Working fine is always good. But until you
try a new version of something, you don't know whether it works even
better or what new features it has that you might like even better.
My recommendation is almost always to try the new version, but save
the installation file for the old one. If you don't like the new
version, go back to the old one.

That is a good point.

Ant

2018-08-05 23:54:43 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Yes.
--
Quote of the Week: "You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes,
but keep on walking because in this world you have to decide what you're
willing to kill." --Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

Mayayana

2018-08-06 00:34:10 UTC

<***@astraweb.com> wrote

|I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should
(can I) upgrade to VLC
| 3.0.3?

For the record, I'm running VLC 2.0.5 on XP.
Later versions run and install OK, but they
malfunction, with weird visual static and
instability. I don't know why. You may be
fine with v. 3 on 7. If not then try an older
version. I don't know of anything 2.0.5 can't
handle.

VanguardLH

2018-08-06 01:38:20 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine.
Should (can I) upgrade to VLC 3.0.3?

I'm currently using VLC 2.2.6 on my home PC running Windows 7 Home x64.
I just used the "Help -> Update check" menu in VLC and it reports that
3.0.3 is available. I remember seeing 3.x of VLC was available but
don't remember back then why I choose to not update from 2.2.6.

https://www.videolan.org/index.html

If you go there and click the downward chevron on the download link,
you'll see multiple operating systems are supported, including Win7.

https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html

says "VLC runs on all versions of Windows, from Windows XP SP3 to the
last version of Windows 10." The author should probably remove the
first clause since "all" doesn't really apply due to the list of
restrictions in the 2nd clause. However, Win7 is listed as supported.

I noticed in the last VLC update that some videos have hiccups in them
that wasn't present before. For example, when reaching the end of a
video (with VLC set to loop) or selecting an interval to repeat, some
videos don't immediate restart smoothly when they hit the end of the
file or the end of the loop. Instead there's a blacked out interval for
a second or the first frame freezes for a second. I've noticed more
pixelation in old videos that played okay before in a prior version of
VLC. I had switched from using the Windows photo & fax viewer for GIF
files to associating VLC with .gif files, and the first artifact that I
noticed in playback is that there is a long pause before VLC starts to
actually play the GIF.

I suspect the problem is with updated codecs. Although I use the K-Lite
Codec Pack to update the codecs on my PC, those are for the globally
accessed codecs (those called by other media programs that use what have
been registered with the OS). VLC doesn't use the global codecs. It
has its own codec library; i.e., VLC uses its own set of codecs (under
<installpath>\plugins\codec), so updating the K-Lite package won't help
with getting a later codec for VLC to see if the hiccups disappear. A
newer version of VLC might have a later collection of codec versions
that resolve whatever screwup occured in the prior codec version (but
which were a later version than what I had before VLC 2.2.26).

I always keep a couple older versions of software in case I need to step
backward after trying a new version. I could've walked backward from
VLC 2.2.6 to, say, 2.2.2 but the video artifacts where significant
enough for me to bother. I will try going to 3.0.3 to check if the
playback artifacts disappear.

https://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/3.0.3.html

Some codecs were mentioned, so maybe they updated their internal codec
library with newer codecs that resolve the playback artifacts
encountered in 2.2.6.

UPDATE - After updating from 2.2.6 to 3.0.3 of VLC

As an extremely short glance at VLC 3.0.3, GIFs no longer have a long
delay before they starting playing in VLC. I saw no delay to restart a
loop; however, this didn't happen in every video, I don't remember for
which video formats it happened, and perhaps the videos that I choose
for testing 3.0.3 didn't incur the delay back in 2.2.6. The delay on
loop restart might be one of those artifacts that I'll have to watch for
until I feel the new version no longer has that problem. The new
version did preserve my customized toolbar, so I don't have to figure
out how to define it again to how I want.

Why not read their forums:

https://forum.videolan.org/viewforum.php?f=21)

to see what other users are complaining about, like:

https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=144622#p473561

I've never used whatever is "video effects", so I cannot address that
issue in 3.0.3. In VLC's settings, hardware-accelerated decoding is set
to Automatic, so I can't tell if VLC is using or even needs that method
for the videos that I'm playing on my particular setup. Since it works
as-is, I haven't bothered testing with hardware-accelerated (GPU
assisted) decoding to set to one of the two listed methods or disabling
it. Seems that setting affects whether or not VLC will play 2K and 4K
videos, and I don't have of those yet. Doesn't seem an overt exposure
of whether VLC is using GPU assist or not (i.e., there's no obvious
indicator). Instead the responses that I saw mention to watch CPU or
GPU usage by changing this setting. GPU assist should reduce the CPU
load by VLC.

j***@astraweb.com

2018-08-06 03:04:24 UTC

Post by VanguardLH
I've noticed more
pixelation in old videos that played okay before in a prior version of
VLC.

Same here, for versions prior to 3......

VanguardLH

2018-08-06 04:56:34 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com

I've noticed more pixelation in old videos that played okay before in
a prior version of VLC.

That was for prior versions to 2.2.6, not 3.0.3. After installing
3.0.3, the problems introduced in 2.2.6 (when I moved from 2.2.2) had
disappeared.

Post by j***@astraweb.com
Same here, for versions prior to 3......

But I noticed it when going from 2.2.2 to 2.2.6 of VLC. Well, when I
had 2.2.6 is when I happened to notice the increased pixelating but it
might've happened before if I had played the same videos in VLC when
using 2.2.2. No way to really know which videos I was playing with
which version of VLC to know when pixelation increased.

That I noticed it in 2.2.6 doesn't mean it wasn't happening in earlier
versions. I probably most noticed the pixelation when I would jump
through a video by using the Forward/Backward buttons (which jump at
10-second increments). Sometimes when I jumped, synchronization seemed
to get lost for a couple seconds, the video pixelated, and then it got
corrected and playback continued okay. I don't have that many .mp4,
.flv, or other video files, and none that I tried had the pixelation in
VLC 3.0.3. Probably depends on which codec the video used that VLC
would then use to decode the video. Many video formats are just
containers, so the codec could be different despite playing the same
container filetype.

For me, 3.0.3 was an improvent in playback quality: no more pixelation
and immediate restart on looping. It's possible a damaged codec got
replaced in the new version's internal codec library. Whatever made it
work better, it's better in 3.0.3 for me than it was in 2.2.6 (which was
worse than when I was previously using 2.2.2). 2.2.2: okay. 2.2.6:
some problems. 3.0.3: okay again.

Shadow

2018-08-06 02:36:21 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Version 2.2.8 here. I did try a more recent version, but got
crashes, so reverted.
If 2.2.4 works, use it.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

j***@astraweb.com

2018-08-06 03:06:45 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Version 2.2.8 here. I did try a more recent version, but got
crashes, so reverted.
If 2.2.4 works, use it.
[]'s

I don;t think i have had crashes yet on updates of VLC.

Ant

2018-08-06 03:52:55 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Version 2.2.8 here. I did try a more recent version, but got
crashes, so reverted.
If 2.2.4 works, use it.
[]'s

I don;t think i have had crashes yet on updates of VLC.

Same here in W7 with VLC. I did have BSoDs in my former Windows XP Pro
SP3 with older VLCs due to a bad video file.
--
Quote of the Week: "You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes,
but keep on walking because in this world you have to decide what you're
willing to kill." --Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

mike

2018-08-06 18:10:33 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Version 2.2.8 here. I did try a more recent version, but got
crashes, so reverted.
If 2.2.4 works, use it.
[]'s

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.

Brian Gregory

2018-08-12 22:15:38 UTC

Post by mike
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).

Paul

2018-08-12 22:42:08 UTC

Post by mike

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine.
Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Version 2.2.8 here. I did try a more recent version, but got
crashes, so reverted.
If 2.2.4 works, use it.
[]'s

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.

ffplay will play .wtv files.
You have to specify the streams though, as
I have stations here with four streams in the file
and stations with five streams in the file. It
could be the difference is subtitles.

("Audio stream 2" "Video stream 3" 704x480 resolution)

ffplay -ast 2 -vst 3 -x 704 -y 480 some.wtv

Part of the ffmpeg package.

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

Paul

2018-08-13 08:43:13 UTC

Post by Paul
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.

j***@astraweb.com

2018-08-06 03:08:25 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Thanks to all that responded. I did upgrade and did a warm reboot to be sure that there would be no
surprises tomorrow morning when i boot.....

Weatherman

2018-08-06 11:36:04 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Yes it does and it runs in Linux too.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-06 13:39:28 UTC

Post by Weatherman

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine.
Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Yes it does and it runs in Linux too.

It (3.0.3) seems to work well enough on my (4 pretend core, 32 bit) W7.

Something I _have_ noticed lately though - though can't say whether it's
only since "up"grading to 3.0.3: sometimes, a video will not update
properly - the moving part paints, but leaves trails; but, at other
times, the _same_ file will play fine. Sometimes if this happens,
hitting the back button (left-arrow; go back 10 seconds) will make the
video play fine when it gets to the same point. It doesn't _seem_ to
relate to what else I'm doing on the computer (usually nothing, when I'm
watching a video - certainly nothing processor- or graphic-intensive).
If I leave such a "smearing" video playing, it _sometimes gets better -
perhaps next I-frame, though if that's the case they're a _lot_ further
apart than I thought they were.

Anyone know why this happens (and ideally how to cure it)? I've most
recently noticed it on some .flv files, but as VLH says, you can't tell
much from an extension these days, as they may contain all sorts of
different things inside.

(These are local files; I haven't _noticed_ it on something playing from
online, but then I don't actually do that much, so it may happen there
too.)

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

"Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have
met."
- John J. Kinyon

Paul

2018-08-06 14:39:35 UTC

Post by Weatherman

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine.
Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

Yes it does and it runs in Linux too.

It (3.0.3) seems to work well enough on my (4 pretend core, 32 bit) W7.
Something I _have_ noticed lately though - though can't say whether it's
only since "up"grading to 3.0.3: sometimes, a video will not update
properly - the moving part paints, but leaves trails; but, at other
times, the _same_ file will play fine. Sometimes if this happens,
hitting the back button (left-arrow; go back 10 seconds) will make the
video play fine when it gets to the same point. It doesn't _seem_ to
relate to what else I'm doing on the computer (usually nothing, when I'm
watching a video - certainly nothing processor- or graphic-intensive).
If I leave such a "smearing" video playing, it _sometimes gets better -
perhaps next I-frame, though if that's the case they're a _lot_ further
apart than I thought they were.
Anyone know why this happens (and ideally how to cure it)? I've most
recently noticed it on some .flv files, but as VLH says, you can't tell
much from an extension these days, as they may contain all sorts of
different things inside.
(These are local files; I haven't _noticed_ it on something playing from
online, but then I don't actually do that much, so it may happen there
too.)

You should go through the VLC preferences with a fine-tooth comb.

The terms you're looking for, are listed here. The renderer choice
can cause smearing, unintentional transparency, green screen,
inability to screen capture, a whole raft of symptoms.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/directshow/choosing-the-right-renderer

The desktop likely uses compositing.

Aero (transparency and friends) can be shut off.

DXVA is the standard interface for hardware-accelerated
playback. Which only works for certain video formats
(perhaps Hollywood types). When third-party (commercial)
video packages first started using hardware acceleration,
I thought they were using some hand-crafted crap. Only
later did the term "DXVA" start showing up, to explain
what they'd tapped into. Programs like VLC or FFMPEG, may
choose to tap into that kind of hardware assist. The output
could be put into an off-screen buffer, and then copied
to a rendering surface (VMR7/VMR9/Overlay/whatever).

A good program exposes the choices in Preferences, so
someone with a crusty video card, can still use the program.

When hardware acceleration is turned off, one side effect
is PrintScreen capture or GDIgrab, might work for you.

Paul

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-06 15:03:35 UTC

In message <pk9mj6$tq5$***@dont-email.me>, Paul <***@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]

Post by Paul
You should go through the VLC preferences with a fine-tooth comb.
The terms you're looking for, are listed here. The renderer choice
can cause smearing, unintentional transparency, green screen,
inability to screen capture, a whole raft of symptoms.

Trouble is, the problem I'm having in VLC only occurs _sometimes_ - with
the same file. Playing it another time will sometimes play fine;
sometimes, it will play OK even in the same session of VLC if I just go
back 20 or 30 seconds and let it play up to that point again.

Post by Paul
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/directshow/choosing-the
-right-renderer

Thanks, noted.

Post by Paul
The desktop likely uses compositing.
Aero (transparency and friends) can be shut off.

I am indeed using a non-Aero theme. I didn't actively hate it as some
seem to do - in fact I quite liked it; but it interfered with something
else, and rather than try to fight whatever that was (I forget now: I
think it included the ability to set/change the colours etc. of various
screen elements), I changed to a non-Aero theme.
[]

Post by Paul
A good program exposes the choices in Preferences, so
someone with a crusty video card, can still use the program.

Toshiba protégé R700-1F5; Display adapters in Device Manager says
"Intel(R) HD Graphics". I don't think it's _very_ crusty.

Post by Paul
When hardware acceleration is turned off, one side effect
is PrintScreen capture or GDIgrab, might work for you.

So far, I've always found VLC's camera button works OK (once I've found
where it's put the result).

Post by Paul
Paul

John

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

The average US shareholding lasts 22 seconds. Nobody knows who invented the
fire hydrant: the patent records were destroyed in a fire. Sandcastles kill
more people than sharks. Your brain uses less power than the light in your
fridge. The Statue of Liberty wears size 879 shoes.
- John Lloyd, QI supremo (RT, 2014/9/27-10/3)

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-08 16:00:52 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

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.

--
@~@ 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! 不賭錢! 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_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

Ant

2018-08-08 21:42:02 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

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.
--
Quote of the Week: "You feel the faint grit of ants beneath your shoes,
but keep on walking because in this world you have to decide what you're
willing to kill." --Tony Hoagland from "Candlelight"
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-09 17:11:06 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine. Should (can I) upgrade to VLC
3.0.3?

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.

Tim

2018-08-09 21:38:34 UTC

Post by j***@astraweb.com
I am currently running 2.2.4 Weatherwax on a 64 bit Win 7 machine.
Should (can I) upgrade to VLC 3.0.3?

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.

From the official VLC web page:

Windows requirements

VLC runs on all versions of Windows, from Windows XP SP3 to the last
version of Windows 10.

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.

😉 Good Guy 😉

2018-08-09 21:42:43 UTC

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

GO FUCK YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER FUCKER.

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

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-10 09:48:25 UTC

Post by ð Good Guy ð

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

Take it easy... stay calm!

Post by ð Good Guy ð
GO FUCK YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER FUCKER.

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

2018-08-10 10:49:55 UTC

Post by ð Good Guy ð

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

Take it easy... stay calm!

Post by ð Good Guy ð
GO FUCK YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER FUCKER.

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

Oedipus thought differently :-)

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-10 11:29:38 UTC

Post by ð Good Guy ð

CAN YOU JUST FUCK 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.)

Post by ð Good Guy ð
GO FUCK YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER FUCKER.

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)***@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.)

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 10:30:22 UTC

GO FUCK YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER FUCKER.

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

Incest is basically in-breeding, which usually result in babies with
deformed bodies or brains. It's bad thing. Only tamed animals like pigs
and chickens do that.

Are you saying that there are races of human beings using only incest to
produce children? I am amazed ....

What are those incest races? Arabians? Indians?

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-11 11:49:27 UTC

This is now totally off-topic for Windows 7 - and the other 'groups. You
are adding 'groups; I've removed starwars and flight-sim from the
followups.

GO FUCK YOUR MUM. TIM IDIOT MOTHER FUCKER.

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

Incest is basically in-breeding, which usually result in babies with

There is some dispute over "usually". It _can_, especially if recursive.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
deformed bodies or brains. It's bad thing. Only tamed animals like pigs
and chickens do that.

However, you said "it is a crime in most countries", which although
IANAL I do not think is the case. Assuming it is the act not the result
(if any) you are referring to.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
Are you saying that there are races of human beings using only incest
to produce children? I am amazed ....

Talk about expanding something! I was only referring to the _legality_
or otherwise of the _act_: you have changed from "countries" to "races",
added an "only", and gone to the limit of including the products of
conception, which IMO is not intended (and usually measures taken
against, in the west at least)! (There are I think some _cultures_ - not
countries or races, though there is of course some overlap between those
- where actual _conception_ of this type is _commoner_, but - with the
possible exception of some very isolated tribes - I don't think many use
it as the _only_ means.)

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
What are those incest races? Arabians? Indians?

No comment (-: [Whatever your personal prejudices may be.]

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

I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding that I get up
early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid (quoted by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2014-11-16)

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 12:09:40 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
What are those incest races? Arabians? Indians?

No comment (-: [Whatever your personal prejudices may be.]

I think you don't really understand what incest means. You possibly just
treat "incest" as "adultery". No, it's more than that.

In general, asking someone to have sex with, aka "fuck", one's mother or
father is direct incest! I know others, notably the judges and
magistrates, would argue it depends on the method used...

OK, I don't work in the field of laws. Any lawyers or law students wanna
throw in some comments?

Anyway.... this topic can be viewed not just from laws, customs,
traditions and religions, but science (notably genetics and medicine)!

And I understand that you do NOT wanna continue ...:)

I suspect most legal systems on this planet Earth doesn't have a clear
definition for "incest" using the science and mathematics of genetics!
It'll be fairly interesting if we throw in DNA into the topic. Anyway...

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 12:16:03 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Talk about expanding something! I was only referring to the _legality_
or otherwise of the _act_: you have changed from "countries" to "races",
added an "only", and gone to the limit of including the products of
conception, which IMO is not intended (and usually measures taken
against, in the west at least)! (There are I think some _cultures_ - not
countries or races, though there is of course some overlap between those
- where actual _conception_ of this type is _commoner_, but - with the
possible exception of some very isolated tribes - I don't think many use
it as the _only_ means.)

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
What are those incest races? Arabians? Indians?

No comment (-: [Whatever your personal prejudices may be.]

Do you wanna talk about rape and incest? How about prostitutes and incest?

Are you married? What is your family's *secret* knowledge about incest?
Is your marriage an incest? :)

Krusty

2018-08-13 03:00:33 UTC

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 18:30:22 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
Incest is basically in-breeding, which usually result in babies with
deformed bodies or brains. It's bad thing. Only tamed animals like pigs
and chickens do that.
Are you saying that there are races of human beings using only incest to
produce children? I am amazed ....
What are those incest races? Arabians? Indians?

Tasmanians.

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 10:39:25 UTC

On 8/10/2018 7:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

I responded because children don't have sex with their immediate genetic
parents, not in Hong Kong at least. Incest is a criminal offense in Hong
Kong! Not sure about China nor Britain though.... Well....

I don't know how your country treats incest. What's your country? What
is definition of incest in your country? :)

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-11 11:59:33 UTC

The four spurious you've added removed from followups. This is OT for W7
too.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
On 8/10/2018 7:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

[]
I don't know. Is what's illegal in HK the act itself, or only if
conception takes place? If it's the act, is it illegal if both are
adults and contraception (physical or medical) is used? How about if the
participants didn't know (adoptees meeting their naturals without
knowing)?

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

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 13:37:15 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
I don't know. Is what's illegal in HK the act itself, or only if
conception takes place? If it's the act, is it illegal if both are
adults and contraception (physical or medical) is used? How about if the
participants didn't know (adoptees meeting their naturals without knowing)?

I don't graduate from Hong Kong laws nor medicine, canNOT respond
professionally. My understanding: it's the sexual contact, which is the
"act"?

Contraception and abortion are NOT excuses nor cure.

2018-08-10 10:48:52 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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.

Tim

2018-08-10 19:26:33 UTC

Post by NY

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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.

😉 Good Guy 😉

2018-08-10 20:05:26 UTC

Post by Tim
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.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-10 22:26:04 UTC

[]

Post by NY
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).

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

Smearing?

Post by NY
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.

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?

Post by Tim
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)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn.

Tim

2018-08-11 00:58:54 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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?

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

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.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-11 03:13:21 UTC

(And thanks Paul as well.)

[]

Post by Tim
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.

Post by Tim
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.

Post by Tim
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)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If a cluttered desk is characteristic of a cluttered mind, what does an empty
desk mean ?

Paul

2018-08-11 04:50:41 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-11 12:15:07 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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!

[]

Post by Paul
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

Excellent summary as usual (-:.

However, I've yet to see any common free "video converter/sion" utility
that bothers to _tell_ the user whether the conversion they've selected
is lossless (including just repackaging) or not. (I was really only
talking about format converters [that work on the whole clip], not
editors.) As you say, about the only way you have of knowing is whether
it goes quickly - and on a good machine for a short clip even that's not
always easy to tell.

It seems an odd omission. But it's not an uncommon omission: for
example, another similar is "audio extraction" utilities - the majority
of those _don't_ seem to have an "extract original stream" option. (One
I have [Pazera] does, but always seems to produce a ".m4a" result, which
fewer audio players can play.)

Char Jackson

2018-08-11 21:07:50 UTC

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.

Paul

2018-08-12 00:08:38 UTC

Post by Char Jackson

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".

Paul

2018-08-12 12:05:12 UTC

Post by Char Jackson

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.

Stephen

2018-08-11 14:47:12 UTC

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

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(And thanks Paul as well.)

[]

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.

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

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

Post by Tim
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.

Post by Tim
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

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 16:49:36 UTC

[]

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

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

nospam

2018-08-11 16:50:47 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras? :)

film is more lossy than digital.

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 16:54:04 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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? :)

nospam

2018-08-11 17:10:25 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

yep.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
But isn't film molecular level? :)

everything is.

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 17:15:34 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
I don't know much about photography films.

clearly.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

yep.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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?

nospam

2018-08-11 17:19:34 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
I don't know much about photography films.

clearly.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
And you might need to talk
about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors
and films!

yep.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
But isn't film molecular level? :)

everything is.

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

size doesn't change anything. film is very lossy and much less accurate
than digital.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
But why can't we use a bigger film then?

we can. there are larger film sizes, namely medium format and large
format, but then you also have to use a larger digital sensor to match.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
Should we always compare 135
film against CMOS sensors of different size?

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

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-12 03:17:04 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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. :)

nospam

2018-08-12 03:22:48 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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!

you're the one making comparisons.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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. :)

what if you stopped posting rubbish?

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-12 03:25:25 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
In reality, we just need to do the job right and fair, not about
comparison or superiority!

you're the one making comparisons.

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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. :)

what if you stopped posting rubbish?

Well, calm down... professor!? Let's continue later. :)

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-12 09:22:50 UTC

Post by nospam
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. :)

knuttle

2018-08-12 12:25:55 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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.

2018-08-12 13:42:28 UTC

Post by knuttle
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).

nospam

2018-08-12 13:57:57 UTC

Post by NY
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.

Post by NY
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.

John Larkin

2018-08-12 00:06:00 UTC

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 00:54:04 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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? :)

Film is quantized to grain size.

--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

Brian Gregory

2018-08-12 22:09:32 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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).

Paul

2018-08-12 22:36:25 UTC

Post by Brian Gregory

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras? :)

film is more lossy than 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

Tim

2018-08-11 17:46:48 UTC

[]

But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old
film-based cameras? :)
BTW, I am thinking about court use....

Even film is not 'lossless' in reference to capturing all the information
in an image. In this case the limitation is physical. A camera lense can
only resolve a certain amount of the incoming image, due to the fact it
is 'compressing' the image to fit the film format (35mm, 120, 70mm, etc).
Then the film has a limit due to its formulation due to the size of the
individual 'grains' in the emulsion. The finer grained the emulsion, the
more detail that can be captured. That is why two photos of the same
scene can have very different amounts of detail captured.

Then, there is a small amount of loss when a photographic image is
copied. Each 'generation' of copying results in some loss of resolution
(data). In real life it usually isn't noticeable except at larger
magnifications, such as accurs in watching a movie in a theatre, or when
parts of the image are 'blown up' into a larger format.

So yes, in court use, the closer one can get to the original image
captured the better one is. That is why 'chain of possession' is such an
important part of evidence.

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 18:03:04 UTC

Post by Tim
So yes, in court use, the closer one can get to the original image
captured the better one is. That is why 'chain of possession' is such an
important part of evidence.

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!

And which pair(s) of human eyes should we use out of billions to make
the decision?

Oh well... the topic is becoming "just trust someone but not me"! :)

nospam

2018-08-11 18:08:56 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 18:16:56 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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.

Tim

2018-08-12 09:55:01 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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'.

Keith Nuttle

2018-08-11 18:24:01 UTC

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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
It is my understanding that when an electronic image is modified it can

be detected by studying the pixel arrangement in the file.

Therefore if you have an electronic image of the original document that
was made from the original document then it is close as you can get to
the original with out having the original. Unless when the file is
examined by an expert they detect fragments in the pixel that indicate
the images was modified.

There is one problem with the above statement If you are holding the
original document, you can see if any pertinent notes were made on the
reverse. Unless otherwise note on the front page you would have no way
of know the note existed from an image of the front page.

For anything but legal evidence presented to a court, If I would not
worry about how close an image is to the original.

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

Wolf K

2018-08-11 18:56:22 UTC

Post by Keith Nuttle

Post by Mr. Man-wai Chang
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
It is my understanding that when an electronic image is modified it can

be detected by studying the pixel arrangement in the file.
Therefore if you have an electronic image of the original document that
was made from the original document then it is close as you can get to
the original with out having the original. Unless when the file is
examined by an expert they detect fragments in the pixel that indicate
the images was modified.
There is one problem with the above statement If you are holding the
original document, you can see if any pertinent notes were made on the
reverse. Unless otherwise note on the front page you would have no way
of know the note existed from an image of the front page.
For anything but legal evidence presented to a court, If I would not
worry about how close an image is to the original.

It used to be quite easy to detect doctored images, sometimes even just
by inspecting picture elements such as shadows or colour balance in
different parts of the image. Not any more. Recent AI can do a better
job than humans.

Considering that many people can't tell the difference between vertical
and horizontal phone-videos, passing off fakes is easy anyhow. However,
AI created fake videos have a problem with eyes: we blink, the blink
rate varies with how we feel about we're saying, and current AI
techniques can't fake natural blinks. Yet.

Have a fun day,

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)

Mr. Man-wai Chang

2018-08-11 21:11:42 UTC

Post by Wolf K
Considering that many people can't tell the difference between vertical
and horizontal phone-videos, passing off fakes is easy anyhow. However,
AI created fake videos have a problem with eyes: we blink, the blink
rate varies with how we feel about we're saying, and current AI
techniques can't fake natural blinks. Yet.

Then you need to look at the video frame-by-frame? Need a prolonged
trial then, for just viewing the video evidences carefully ... :)

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-11 21:15:01 UTC

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

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(And thanks Paul as well.)

[]

Good point, but I was talking about conversion between different video
file formats.
[]

I don't think that's _necessarily_ so, if the conversion is just a
repackaging, or the second compression uses the same algorithm and
settings as the first. But what I was really asking about was that
someone (actually I think two someones - they've been snipped now)
listed a lot of conversions, and there was no indication whether any of
them were lossless (i. e. resulted in no _further_ degradation).

Post by Tim
similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.

Although not quite true (see above), it's probably best to assume that
yes, any further conversions do degrade. I'm a little saddened that
there seems little interest in establishing where the is _not_ the case,
though.
[]

Post by Stephen
- 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.

Interesting. Not one you hear of much these days.

Post by Stephen
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

Yes, I'd have expected that.
[]

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

"quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if
you say it in Latin")

Stephen

2018-08-11 21:53:47 UTC

On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:15:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

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

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(And thanks Paul as well.)

[]

Good point, but I was talking about conversion between different video
file formats.
[]

Post by Tim
similiar to your JPEG to JPEG example, since JPEG is a lossy compression
format.

Post by Stephen
- 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.

Interesting. Not one you hear of much these days.

Because the compression is done frame by frame and keeps more info -
so lower comression ratios.

"lossless" JPEG will reduce a 1.5 Gbps HD uncompressed 1080i video
stream to maybe 300 Mbps.

A lossy JPEG trades off "quality"for compression like any of the other
systems - but the systems I worked on had a sweet spot for the types
of sources around 20 - 50 Mbps.

distribution systems with more limited bandwdith like TV and DVD need
higher compression, so JPEG isnt a good choice.

Yes, I'd have expected that.
[]

Agreed.
But it seems to hold true even where different versions of the same
compression family are used.

You probably have more room to improve the results if you are not
having to deal with a real time stream (where you only get to do a
single pass unless you are adding a lot of delay).

--
Stephen

Frank Slootweg

2018-08-12 09:22:22 UTC

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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).

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-13 02:13:22 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

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.

Post by Frank Slootweg
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)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Easy reading is damned hard writing. -Nathaniel Hawthorne, writer (1804-1864)

Frank Slootweg

2018-08-13 12:13:07 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

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

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'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.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

2018-08-13 14:18:02 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

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

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.

Well, not entirely irrelevant - depends if you have an editor/renderer
that can change that setting, or create it if not present (as may be the
case if the file was created on a camera without an orientation sensor).
If your renderer can only _read_ the setting (or it isn't there), and
you have a picture that's the wrong way orientation, you're stuck. (For
permanent correction of the file anyway; most renderers [viewers] I've
seen have the ability to rotate the current view, just not always save
the result, and certainly not always losslessly in the case of a JPEG.)

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.

Well, "JPEG lossless rotate" is under Options, or just shift-J. (You may
need the plugins, as I said; I always install both the main and the
plugins anyway, so I don't know if that option appears if you haven't.)
But I do not know if it does it my changing the EXIF setting (or setting
it at all if it hasn't been set), or by moving the pixels around. (I
_think_ the JPEG compression scheme could do that losslessly.)

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

Well, this one's not hard to _do_ (just shift-J then R or L - analogous
to the normal R or L), though I don't know about find. (I agree some
things creep up on you: I had gone through two or three upgrades before
I found out that someone had added a paint-type toolbox [press F12] to
IrfanView.)

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

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham
Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)

2018-08-13 16:51:42 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
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.

The only situations where the rotation flag seems to be honoured are in the
camera that took the photo.

My phone displays rotated photos according to the orientation of the phone
when it took the photo. But when I copy the photos onto my Windows PC, there
are all oriented as landscape in Windows Explorer (displayed as thumbnails),
so it is necessary to rotate them by +/- 90 degrees, or even by 180 degrees
if I've held the phone upside down when taking a landscape photo.

Image manipulation software such as Paint Shop Pro (V5 up to V X8) and
Photoshop Elements (V7 and V11) don't honour the flag and display the photos
the same way round that they are displayed as thumbnails in Windows
Explorer.

Mayayana

2018-08-13 17:46:03 UTC

"NY" <***@privacy.net> wrote

| The only situations where the rotation flag seems to be honoured are in
the
| camera that took the photo.
|
As was mentioned, Irfan View can be set to display
according to EXIF orientation. But as John noted, that's
only half the problem. EXIF data is often not there at all.
Displaying according to orientation is mainly relevant only
in the limited situation of people sending cellphone JPG
pictures to each other.

And it's still not a solution. Example: Recently I had
someone send me drawings of something like a dryer vent.
The photo is of an 8x11" piece of paper. Without orientation
the top is on the left. With orientation the top is on
the right. :) I'm guessing the person who took the photo
had the paper on a desk, their phone held horizontally,
and never even looked at the photo before sending it
to me. The phone "thought" it was in landscape mode.
I find that happens a lot.

2018-08-13 18:01:01 UTC

Post by Mayayana
| The only situations where the rotation flag seems to be honoured are in
the
| camera that took the photo.
|
As was mentioned, Irfan View can be set to display
according to EXIF orientation. But as John noted, that's
only half the problem. EXIF data is often not there at all.
Displaying according to orientation is mainly relevant only
in the limited situation of people sending cellphone JPG
pictures to each other.
And it's still not a solution. Example: Recently I had
someone send me drawings of something like a dryer vent.
The photo is of an 8x11" piece of paper. Without orientation
the top is on the left. With orientation the top is on
the right. :) I'm guessing the person who took the photo
had the paper on a desk, their phone held horizontally,
and never even looked at the photo before sending it
to me. The phone "thought" it was in landscape mode.
I find that happens a lot.

That's why I always rotate photos using rotation capabilities of Windows
Explorer or else of an image-processing app (and then re-save). Preferably
saving the copy in a lossless format such as PNG or TIFF (or GIF if it's a
256-colour image) so that any further work won't incur extra generation
losses that you'd get with JPG.

I quality isn't an issue - a quick "this is how it is" photo rather than an
artistic photo, I rotate in Windows Explorer; for artistic or other quality
photo I go for image-processing app and save in lossless.

Mayayana

2018-08-13 18:09:20 UTC

"NY" <***@privacy.net> wrote

| That's why I always rotate photos using rotation capabilities of Windows
| Explorer or else of an image-processing app (and then re-save). Preferably
| saving the copy in a lossless format such as PNG or TIFF (or GIF if it's a
| 256-colour image) so that any further work won't incur extra generation
| losses that you'd get with JPG.
|
| I quality isn't an issue - a quick "this is how it is" photo rather than
an
| artistic photo, I rotate in Windows Explorer; for artistic or other
quality
| photo I go for image-processing app and save in lossless.
|

I do the same. I've never had occasion to even try
so-called lossless rotation or cropping of a JPG. If I
care about the image that much then I'll save it, clean
it up in PSP, then save it out as something non-lossy,
usually BMP or TIF. JPG is a wretched container. Its
only good qualities are very small image size, cross-
platform browser support, and no royalties. That makes
it good for webpages, but it never should have been
a camera format in the first place.

Wolf K

2018-08-13 18:11:42 UTC

As I said in another thread, there appears to be no universal standard
for marking the orientation of a photograph.

A bit-mapped image file is a block of bytes. There are four possible
orientations, so the cameras and cellphones would have to sense not only
vertical vs horizontal, but also right side up vs upside down.

One could either fix a standard labelling of the corners (ABCD, reading
clockwise from upper left in the base orientation), and then specify
which of the four corners is the upper left for the image file. Or one
could write firmware to rearrange the data so that it always begins with
the upper left corner.

As a user I don't care what standard is used, as long as it's a standard.

So why don't we have some standard?

Have a good day,

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)

nospam

2018-08-13 18:22:59 UTC

Post by Wolf K
As I said in another thread, there appears to be no universal standard
for marking the orientation of a photograph.

there is, and it's called the exif orientation tag.

Post by Wolf K
A bit-mapped image file is a block of bytes. There are four possible
orientations, so the cameras and cellphones would have to sense not only
vertical vs horizontal, but also right side up vs upside down.

which they do.

Post by Wolf K
One could either fix a standard labelling of the corners (ABCD, reading
clockwise from upper left in the base orientation), and then specify
which of the four corners is the upper left for the image file. Or one
could write firmware to rearrange the data so that it always begins with
the upper left corner.
As a user I don't care what standard is used, as long as it's a standard.
So why don't we have some standard?

we do.

<https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/EXIF.html>
0x0112 Orientation int16u IFD0

1 = Horizontal (normal)
2 = Mirror horizontal
3 = Rotate 180
4 = Mirror vertical
5 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 270 CW
6 = Rotate 90 CW
7 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 90 CW
8 = Rotate 270 CW

Wolf K

2018-08-13 19:01:29 UTC

[...]

Post by Wolf K
So why don't we have some standard?

we do.
<https://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/EXIF.html>
0x0112 Orientation int16u IFD0
1 = Horizontal (normal)
2 = Mirror horizontal
3 = Rotate 180
4 = Mirror vertical
5 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 270 CW
6 = Rotate 90 CW
7 = Mirror horizontal and rotate 90 CW
8 = Rotate 270 CW

Mirror?, Oh, I see, that's the selfie orientation.

OK, so why do pictures sent from cellphones sometimes show up here
incorrectly oriented?

Bah!

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to
work? Medicine. (T. Minchin)

Frank Slootweg

2018-08-13 19:03:34 UTC

Wolf K <***@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]

Post by Wolf K
As I said in another thread, there appears to be no universal standard
for marking the orientation of a photograph.

There is for JPEG pictures: EXIF. nospam posted some more details on
the possible settings.

(I don't know is EXIF is also used with other - than JPEG - formats.
Never had the needed to bother to investigate.)

I don't know if all cameras and phones get it right, but our cameras
[1] do get it right. They do not only sense the orientation of the
camera, but also the movement. So I can turn the camera 90 degrees
clockwise or 90 degrees counter-clockwise and it will detect correct
portrait mode in both cases. (I've not been so silly to hold it
upside-down for landscape, but it will probably get that right as well.)

As Mayayana pointed out, non-landscape/non-portait pictures - i.e. of
a document on a table - cannot be detected 'correctly', so just stick
them to a wall! :-)

[...]

[1] Nikon D3300 (entry-level DSLR) and Canon PowerShot SX200 IS (good
quality 'zoom'-camera).

nospam

2018-08-13 17:56:58 UTC

Post by NY

The only situations where the rotation flag seems to be honoured are in the
camera that took the photo.

as well as nearly all software used to view and manipulate photos.

Post by NY
My phone displays rotated photos according to the orientation of the phone
when it took the photo. But when I copy the photos onto my Windows PC, there
are all oriented as landscape in Windows Explorer (displayed as thumbnails),
so it is necessary to rotate them by +/- 90 degrees, or even by 180 degrees
if I've held the phone upside down when taking a landscape photo.

that would be one of the exceptions.

Post by NY
Image manipulation software such as Paint Shop Pro (V5 up to V X8) and
Photoshop Elements (V7 and V11) don't honour the flag and display the photos
the same way round that they are displayed as thumbnails in Windows
Explorer.

photoshop absolutely honours the rotate tag.

Frank Slootweg

2018-08-13 17:57:02 UTC

Post by NY

I thought that that was indeed still the case, but I just checked on
my Windows 8.1 system and I *think* that in 8.1's File Explorer (Windows
Explorer was renamed in 8[.1]) and 8.1's Windows Photo Viewer, the
rotation flag/bits *is/are* honoured. (Because my camera sets the
flag/bits, I do not physically rotate them and FE/WPV show the correct
orientation.

As this is crossposted to alt.windows7.general and
alt.comp.os.windows-10, perhaps some people can verify that Windows 7 is
indeed still broken and that Windows 10 is fixed (like 8.1 seems to be).

I'm rather surprised/disappointed by that. IMO such 'professional'
software should honour the rotation flag/bits, or better, have a
settable option to honour/not-honour it/them.

2018-08-13 18:09:01 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
As this is crossposted to alt.windows7.general and
alt.comp.os.windows-10, perhaps some people can verify that Windows 7 is
indeed still broken and that Windows 10 is fixed (like 8.1 seems to be).

My comments are about Win 7. I'm sticking to Win 7 until they drag me away
kicking and screaming. :-) Even if I have to change to Win 10, I'll use
Classic Shell to give me a proper Win XP/Vista/7 start menu, and proper
Quick Launch icons at the left of the task bar, which are totally separate
from the icons for running apps (why did Win 8/10 choose to merge these two
distinct concepts?)

The problem with the flag is that I don't *think* it supports 180 degree
rotation (maybe I'm wrong) so if I've held my phone in landscape, but
rotated +90 insted of -90 degrees from normal portrait mode, I may still
need to rotate those by 180.

Until today I'd thought that autorotation on a phone was confined to the
phone, and didn't work for native Windows or Windows apps. I was wrong.

nospam

2018-08-13 18:23:00 UTC

Post by NY
The problem with the flag is that I don't *think* it supports 180 degree
rotation (maybe I'm wrong) so if I've held my phone in landscape, but
rotated +90 insted of -90 degrees from normal portrait mode, I may still
need to rotate those by 180.

it supports all orientations as well as mirrored versions.

Frank Slootweg

2018-08-13 17:57:03 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.

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

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.

We're mostly on the same page. The editor should be able to change the
setting. Most renderers have an editor part, but - as you say - that
editor part is often lacking the desired/needed functionality.

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.

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

I've just checked and IrfanView's "JPEG lossless rotate" *does* move
the pixels around (i.e. does a real/'physical' rotate) and hence does
*not* set "that flag".

AFAICT, the "lossless" is not quite true, because in my test the
rotated file is slightly smaller that the original (626,860 versus
654,241 bytes (yes, it's a small/old JPEG). Probably the (non-)lossless
depends on which settings one uses in the 'JPG -Lossless
transformations' popup. For example, should 'Optimize JPG file' be on or
off?

Anyway, messing with the pixels is not what I'm looking for (in this
case in IrfanView). I'm looking for a logical/pseudo rotate which just
sets the bits in the EXIF part to the correct orientation. (If needed,)
I normally do that with the software of my previous camera, OLYMPUS
Viewer 3.

Paul

2018-08-11 02:56:17 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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

Brian Gregory

2018-08-12 22:27:14 UTC