So what is the reason for XBMC/PLEX vs just using WMC? - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 31Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 97 Old 07-06-2014, 05:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
You can playback a recording in WMC and experience the epliectic strobing flicker, then playback the same recording without changing a thing in MPC-HC and it will not flicker
Yeah... and?

You can also not change a thing in WMC and disable "Dynamic Contrast Enhancement" in your video drivers, and in many cases you'll no longer experience the epileptic strobing flicker.

MPC-HC is ignoring the flag in the video stream. WMC is obeying the flag in the video stream. The problem isn't with the software, the problem is with the video stream. Why is that difficult to grasp?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
The primary reason that the issue doesn't manifest itself through other players is because most other players ignore the frame flag, and simply display the content as progressive (regardless of what is actually in the video stream) since that is the type of video that nearly all video players are designed to work with. Those that are capable of properly displaying interlaced output that aren't affected by the issue, are usually employing alternative methods (ie a "hack' of some sort) to determine if the content is progressive of interlaced.
Ignoring the flag isn't a solution to the problem, it's simply hiding the symptoms. The solution to the problem is to have video that is properly encoded in the first place, and hardware capable of playing it. Neither of those things is a WMC issue.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 97 Old 07-06-2014, 06:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
lulimet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perkasie, PA
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I don't do live TV with my HTPC so I don't use WMC. I do use Plex, but only for playback on tablet. Recently I started playing with MB3 server and MBT and like it especially how good it is with metadata. I wish MBT had a working music player but I am sure that will come soon.
Right now XBMC is king for me and always has been. I only use it for playback of locally stored movies and music (don't have TV shows). I have tried most of the other players and I always go back to XBMC.
lulimet is offline  
post #63 of 97 Old 07-06-2014, 06:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Hisma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Yeah... and?

You can also not change a thing in WMC and disable "Dynamic Contrast Enhancement" in your video drivers, and in many cases you'll no longer experience the epileptic strobing flicker.

MPC-HC is ignoring the flag in the video stream. WMC is obeying the flag in the video stream. The problem isn't with the software, the problem is with the video stream. Why is that difficult to grasp?



Ignoring the flag isn't a solution to the problem, it's simply hiding the symptoms. The solution to the problem is to have video that is properly encoded in the first place, and hardware capable of playing it. Neither of those things is a WMC issue.
read the kb
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2658140

we're not just talking about strobing (which for me wasn't a dynamic contrast issue, it was only strobing with certain bright colors), it causes judder as well. It's not "hiding the symptoms" if the problems aren't prevalent in other pvr programs. That's just a poor excuse to make when the show you may want to watch isn't "properly encoded".

Microsoft's solution is to try new video drivers, or a new video card altogether.
Hisma is online now  
post #64 of 97 Old 07-06-2014, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hisma View Post
read the kb
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2658140

we're not just talking about strobing (which for me wasn't a dynamic contrast issue, it was only strobing with certain bright colors), it causes judder as well. It's not "hiding the symptoms" if the problems aren't prevalent in other pvr programs. That's just a poor excuse to make when the show you may want to watch isn't "properly encoded".

Microsoft's solution is to try new video drivers, or a new video card altogether.
I've read the KB article. It doesn't say anything I haven't already told you.

It is an encoding problem. That isn't an excuse. It's reality. Regardless of what the symptoms might be, Microsoft is simply following the standards set forth by other organizations. Give WMC a proper video stream, and you get proper output. Give it an improperly encoded video stream and... What do you really expect to happen? What do you expect it to fix? If the video stream was encoded with the wrong AR, would you expect it to display properly anyway? Would MPC-HC or XBMC display it in the proper AR? Of course not. Would you say that either has a bug because it doesn't display that video properly? Of course not. Because it isn't a problem with the software it's a problem with the video stream.

Furthermore, just because MPC-HC and XBMC ignore the frame encoding flag in the video stream, and it displays some content in a better manner than what WMC does, that doesn't mean that it displays everything right. It's either forcing everything to be displayed as progressive, which means that interlaced content isn't displayed properly, or it is using some other means for detecting if content is interlaced, so it's anybody's guess if/when it will display interlaced content properly.

The reason that MS suggests getting a new video card or updating drivers, is because that is the only thing a user can do to remedy the problem. Unless you're working in the control room at CBS or whatever network is displaying the 29/59 issue, there is nothing else you can do about it.

If I have a letter delivered via US Mail vs Fed-Ex they will go about delivering that letter two different ways. Say I want to send a letter to my friend. But I know my friend is housesitting for a neighbor and he will be at the neighbor's house all week. If I send that letter via US mail, and address it to my friend, and put his neighbor's adress on it, Fed Ex will deliver it to the neighbor's house and my friend will get the letter. If I send it via US Mail they assume they know better than I do and ignore the address I put on the envelope and they deliver it to my friend's house instead of where I addressed it, and my friend won't get the letter in a timely fashion.

Fed Ex is WMC. They're just doing what they're told. Delivering the envelope where they were told. US Mail is MPC-HC. They're ignoring the explicit information I included on the envelope and instead they're trying to interpret where they think, I wanted it to go.

So now let's look at the flip side of the coin... Let's say I put the wrong address on the envelope. Let's say my friend was home, but I accidentally addressed it to his neighbor's house number. US Mail will recognize that the name and address don't match and deliver it to the right location anyway. Fed Ex will try and deliver it to the neighbors, because that's what the envelope says. If the neighbor isn't home to say "oh, that should go next door" Fed Ex will eventually stop trying to deliver it.

So now you're thinking A-hah! See... the US Mail (MPC-HC) has triumphed and that proves the point that MPC-HC is best! Well, that's all well and good, but is it Fed Ex's fault that the envelope didn't get delivered in the 2nd scenario? No. Of course not. I'm the one that put the wrong address on the envelope. That's my fault, not theirs. Blaming them would be ludicrous. Regardless of the blame, using the 2nd example as a reason to do it the way the US Mail (MPC-HC) completely ignores the first example. In the first example, you don't ever really know if anyone is ever going to get their mail, because the US Mail is basically ignoring the address and just going by the name.

Point being it is not a WMC problem. It is a content problem combined with a hardware/driver issue. The only way you will see issues is if the content is encoded improperly and your hardware can't cope with it. Complaining about MS not fixing it shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem as there is nothing for MS to fix. They're already following the standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Babbage
On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that would lead a person to think that feeding a video player a broken video stream should result in proper video playback.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #65 of 97 Old 07-06-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mike99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Has anyone ever tried changing this registry value?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/37...3-tomshardware

The person who posted the hack said his RefreshRate was zero & changing it to 60 fixed his stuttering, but the OP said his was 59 & changing it to 60 made no difference.

I can’t check to see if this works because I installed a video card & no longer have a problem. That being said my HTPC has the RefreshRate at 60 and my desktop is at zero. I also see there's an interlaced function & both of my PC's are set to zero.
Mike99 is offline  
post #66 of 97 Old 07-06-2014, 11:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
I've read the KB article. It doesn't say anything I haven't already told you.

It is an encoding problem. That isn't an excuse. It's reality. Regardless of what the symptoms might be, Microsoft is simply following the standards set forth by other organizations. Give WMC a proper video stream, and you get proper output. Give it an improperly encoded video stream and... What do you really expect to happen? What do you expect it to fix? If the video stream was encoded with the wrong AR, would you expect it to display properly anyway? Would MPC-HC or XBMC display it in the proper AR? Of course not. Would you say that either has a bug because it doesn't display that video properly? Of course not. Because it isn't a problem with the software it's a problem with the video stream.

Furthermore, just because MPC-HC and XBMC ignore the frame encoding flag in the video stream, and it displays some content in a better manner than what WMC does, that doesn't mean that it displays everything right. It's either forcing everything to be displayed as progressive, which means that interlaced content isn't displayed properly, or it is using some other means for detecting if content is interlaced, so it's anybody's guess if/when it will display interlaced content properly.

The reason that MS suggests getting a new video card or updating drivers, is because that is the only thing a user can do to remedy the problem. Unless you're working in the control room at CBS or whatever network is displaying the 29/59 issue, there is nothing else you can do about it.



I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that would lead a person to think that feeding a video player a broken video stream should result in proper video playback.

I was the one who started that 29/59 thread, years ago. Although you are technically correct, I believe most people simply want to be able to watch their recordings, and don't really care who's fault it is. You can continue trying to explain the logic behind why, but you might as well try explaining how an automobile engine works to everyone applying for their license.

There is a problem with Microsoft's "solution", in that you can change your video card several times, and still not "fix" your issue. Heck, I did a fresh install of Win7 earlier this year, and even though I was using the same card that "fixed" my issue, after the install, the problem was back. Even though I was using the same driver as b4! (I had to try a few other drivers b4 I finally "fixed" it again).

Now, you're thinking, that's still not MS's fault. That's correct. But (at least to me) it's their attitude that I have a problem with. they could have simply added an option to "ignore" the flag, if the end user wished. Why should they? No reason other than TO SHOW THEY GIVE A CRAP about their customers.

The core issue for the end user is, they really have no where to turn. No one is taking responsability for this (but everyone is willing to take our money).

Had I not lucked into a combonation video card/driver that "fixed" my issue, I would have abandoned WMC long ago. By now it's no secret that MS no longer has any interest in WMC. If someone were to ask me today, whether they should consider using WMC to replace their cable DVR, I would probably tell them to first consider sh*t canning cable all together, but if they wanted to try, be prepaired to give up if they're unlucky enough to have this issue.

Anyway, I'm off to hunt UFO's.
leebo is offline  
post #67 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebo View Post
I was the one who started that 29/59 thread, years ago. Although you are technically correct, I believe most people simply want to be able to watch their recordings, and don't really care who's fault it is. You can continue trying to explain the logic behind why, but you might as well try explaining how an automobile engine works to everyone applying for their license.

There is a problem with Microsoft's "solution", in that you can change your video card several times, and still not "fix" your issue. Heck, I did a fresh install of Win7 earlier this year, and even though I was using the same card that "fixed" my issue, after the install, the problem was back. Even though I was using the same driver as b4! (I had to try a few other drivers b4 I finally "fixed" it again).

Now, you're thinking, that's still not MS's fault. That's correct. But (at least to me) it's their attitude that I have a problem with. they could have simply added an option to "ignore" the flag, if the end user wished. Why should they? No reason other than TO SHOW THEY GIVE A CRAP about their customers.

The core issue for the end user is, they really have no where to turn. No one is taking responsability for this (but everyone is willing to take our money).

Had I not lucked into a combonation video card/driver that "fixed" my issue, I would have abandoned WMC long ago. By now it's no secret that MS no longer has any interest in WMC. If someone were to ask me today, whether they should consider using WMC to replace their cable DVR, I would probably tell them to first consider sh*t canning cable all together, but if they wanted to try, be prepaired to give up if they're unlucky enough to have this issue.

Anyway, I'm off to hunt UFO's.
What you're asking for is a feature request, not a bug fix. The product right now is working as intended (following the progressive flag) which by definition means what you are describing is not a bug. It's crappy source material. Period. I agree it would be great if Microsoft added an option to ignore the flag, but that isn't a fix, in that you'll still either have interlaced video displayed incorrectly all the time, or you'll having WMC "guess" what is interlaced and what isn't, which means there is still no guarantee that you'll be seeing the picture the way you're supposed to.

I still see commercials that are displayed in the wrong AR quite frequently, and periodically some programming on the local channels still come up in the wrong AR. That isn't a bug in WMC, it's improperly flagged content. It's going to show up improperly no matter what program you view it in. That is in no way shape or form a bug, and it is in no way shape or form the responsibility of the software player to try and determine what should be 16:9 and what should be 4:3 other than displaying it the way the content provider encodes it, and that is the exact same thing as the framerate issue. It's poor source material. No ifs ands or buts.

If you don't care who's fault it is then why insist on placing the blame at the foot of Microsoft? Sure if Microsoft gave a crap about their customers they would have added an option to force content to progressive or interlaced, and ignore the flag. And if they gave a crap about their customers, they would have rolled out SP2 for Win7 instead of forcing everyone to download 140 updates on a new install. And if they gave a crap about their customers they would have fixed the missing column of pixels bug. (which is a genuine bug) And if they gave a crap about their customers they would have given everyone to enable the "legacy" interface on their new OS, just as they had done on every previous OS before it, so they could make a smooth transition. And if they cared about their customers they would have just included WMC in Win 8 to begin with. And if Microsoft cared about their customers as much as we want/expect/demand, they'd be out of business with no customers to care for.

I understand if you're frustrated that WMC doesn't work the way you want it to. Having experienced the issue myself (confirmed via 411 diagnostic screen) I get that it is extremely annoying. But in this case, Microsoft is simply the messenger. They're delivering the content the way the content provider told them to. You are in every sense of the expression, trying to shoot the messenger. If some guy puts a turd in a box and ships it to you, are you going to blame the guy that delivered it to you? Is it his responsibility to make sure all your boxes are turd free? Does it not make sense to at least blame the guy that shipped you a turd in the first place?

I would bet dollars to donuts that you've already given 10 fold the amount of money to your cable company to have them send you content, than you'll ever give to Microsoft for WMC. So where is all the uproar and dissatisfaction with your cable company? Why isn't anyone on here screaming about the crappy content that is being delivered? Why all the outrage directed at a company that isn't even the source of the problem? If you want it fixed, why not go complain to your cable provider for screwing it up in the first place instead of whining about how Microsoft won't add features to fix something that they didn't even break?

It just strikes me as intellectually lazy to blame Microsoft, when it clearly isn't a problem they created, nor do they have the power to properly fix. (again, no matter what hacked solution they implement there is no guarantee that it will display all of your content properly)

If you want somewhere to turn, GO TELL YOUR CABLE PROVIDER THAT YOU GIVE A CRAP, because right now, despite the fact that it's very clear they are the only ones that have the power to actually fix the issue, you seem determined to dig your heels in and prove to them that you don't care how much screwed up content they send down the pipe, as you're content to just sit back and blame Microsoft, and put the onus of "fixing" the issue on them. As long as you're determined to do that, what motivation does your cable company have to actually fix the root of the issue?

Spoiler!

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #68 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
balky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
I've read the KB article. It doesn't say anything I haven't already told you.

It is an encoding problem. That isn't an excuse. It's reality. Regardless of what the symptoms might be, Microsoft is simply following the standards set forth by other organizations. Give WMC a proper video stream, and you get proper output. Give it an improperly encoded video stream and... What do you really expect to happen? What do you expect it to fix? If the video stream was encoded with the wrong AR, would you expect it to display properly anyway? Would MPC-HC or XBMC display it in the proper AR? Of course not. Would you say that either has a bug because it doesn't display that video properly? Of course not. Because it isn't a problem with the software it's a problem with the video stream.

Furthermore, just because MPC-HC and XBMC ignore the frame encoding flag in the video stream, and it displays some content in a better manner than what WMC does, that doesn't mean that it displays everything right. It's either forcing everything to be displayed as progressive, which means that interlaced content isn't displayed properly, or it is using some other means for detecting if content is interlaced, so it's anybody's guess if/when it will display interlaced content properly.

The reason that MS suggests getting a new video card or updating drivers, is because that is the only thing a user can do to remedy the problem. Unless you're working in the control room at CBS or whatever network is displaying the 29/59 issue, there is nothing else you can do about it.

If I have a letter delivered via US Mail vs Fed-Ex they will go about delivering that letter two different ways. Say I want to send a letter to my friend. But I know my friend is housesitting for a neighbor and he will be at the neighbor's house all week. If I send that letter via US mail, and address it to my friend, and put his neighbor's adress on it, Fed Ex will deliver it to the neighbor's house and my friend will get the letter. If I send it via US Mail they assume they know better than I do and ignore the address I put on the envelope and they deliver it to my friend's house instead of where I addressed it, and my friend won't get the letter in a timely fashion.

Fed Ex is WMC. They're just doing what they're told. Delivering the envelope where they were told. US Mail is MPC-HC. They're ignoring the explicit information I included on the envelope and instead they're trying to interpret where they think, I wanted it to go.

So now let's look at the flip side of the coin... Let's say I put the wrong address on the envelope. Let's say my friend was home, but I accidentally addressed it to his neighbor's house number. US Mail will recognize that the name and address don't match and deliver it to the right location anyway. Fed Ex will try and deliver it to the neighbors, because that's what the envelope says. If the neighbor isn't home to say "oh, that should go next door" Fed Ex will eventually stop trying to deliver it.

So now you're thinking A-hah! See... the US Mail (MPC-HC) has triumphed and that proves the point that MPC-HC is best! Well, that's all well and good, but is it Fed Ex's fault that the envelope didn't get delivered in the 2nd scenario? No. Of course not. I'm the one that put the wrong address on the envelope. That's my fault, not theirs. Blaming them would be ludicrous. Regardless of the blame, using the 2nd example as a reason to do it the way the US Mail (MPC-HC) completely ignores the first example. In the first example, you don't ever really know if anyone is ever going to get their mail, because the US Mail is basically ignoring the address and just going by the name.

Point being it is not a WMC problem. It is a content problem combined with a hardware/driver issue. The only way you will see issues is if the content is encoded improperly and your hardware can't cope with it. Complaining about MS not fixing it shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem as there is nothing for MS to fix. They're already following the standard.



I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that would lead a person to think that feeding a video player a broken video stream should result in proper video playback.

Can you please have some bit of respect for the world's largest airline...

No comparing customer service quality from FedEx to Microsoft...
FedEx does not ignore anything customer satisfaction related...

If your envelope is wrongly addressed, you will be contacted for correction, and there is money back guarantee if your package is not delivered in an agreed upon timely manner...

Wrong analogy... FedEx is definitely not anything near an example to use for comparing both MPC-HC and WMC...
balky is offline  
post #69 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
leebo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA
Posts: 1,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Well, we actually agree. As for my cable co. (Or local broadcast network, etc.), they will eventually be getting the message. They may get it too late, but that's their problem. Time (and technology) marches on. Some adapt (like the music industry), and some don't (Blockbuster).

Not sent from a browser. Keep it to yourself though.
leebo is offline  
post #70 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,547
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 301


UFOs, USPS, FedEx, tl;dr;not-worth-pointing-out-fallacies-in-logic;#thenewmfusick
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #71 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:40 AM
Member
 
David Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 18
For playing files locally on my DTS home cinema setup, with either rips of my optical library or self produced files, I use windows media player with the Shark007 codec pack.

For multi client multi platform multi device acces to my library locally, and externally via the internet, I use Plex.

For both these scenarios each option I use is the best way of doing this. I say this with some certaintanty due to many years working with media, and many years fine tuning my media playback systems. And by many years, I mean many headaches

My Shark007 system is based on a tiny silent Atom based computer/front end, that links back to my media via either USB or my network. This can handle any rips of my optical library, even my HD-DVD rips.

My Plex server is based around an Atom NetBook, again linking to media either via USB or my network. The media for this setup is all encoded to be maximised for web streaming, so no transcoding going on.

Both systems are optimised for power consumption and go to ultra low power saving mode very quickly. The Plex server can be woken up via any client accessing its library, even from the web. Both systems have an average power draw of between 25 to 50 watts, including media drives over USB. So are very efficient and cost between 0-6 pence a day to run and be left on 24/7

Cheers,
Dave.
David Harry is offline  
post #72 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
No comparing customer service quality from FedEx to Microsoft...
FedEx does not ignore anything customer satisfaction related...
The analogy had nothing to do with customer service. It was simply to demonstrate that the issue is with the sender, not the messenger. It is a very apt comparison, even if you fail to see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
Wrong analogy... FedEx is definitely not anything near an example to use for comparing both MPC-HC and WMC...
The analogy is fine. You're just trying to apply it in a manner not intended. Of course every detail isn't exact. If it was, it would cease to be an analogy and instead it would just be another example of the frame rate issue.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #73 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
UFOs, USPS, FedEx, tl;dr;not-worth-pointing-out-fallacies-in-logic;#thenewmfusick
By all means, if I'm wrong, show me. I'd hate to spread misinformation like some other people around here seem so fond of doing.

Oh and speaking of logical fallacies.. if you didn't read it, how do you know it has logical fallacies to point out?

Plenty of reasons to hate on Microsoft if that's your thing. No need to fabricate more. And make no mistake... calling the frame rate issue a bug is a fabrication.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #74 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 02:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
balky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
The analogy had nothing to do with customer service. It was simply to demonstrate that the issue is with the sender, not the messenger. It is a very apt comparison, even if you fail to see that.



The analogy is fine. You're just trying to apply it in a manner not intended. Of course every detail isn't exact. If it was, it would cease to be an analogy and instead it would just be another example of the frame rate issue.
Exactly what I am trying to point out... FedEx goes to great lengths to correct ANY sender mistake and ensure the customer gets what they pay for... while on the other hand, Microsoft acknowledges the issue but turn their back anyway...

Wanna know why I think the analogy is wrong...
WMC is not flexible and has to obey the video delivery rules to the letter... MPC-HC on the hand ignores information that is intended for the correct delivery of video... assuming your explanation is correct...
FedEx is very flexible depending on customer needs, and does not ignore any information from customer regarding the delivery of packages...
balky is offline  
post #75 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 02:36 AM
Member
 
Specka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Personally, my move away from WMC was due to its inherently closed design. In its bare form its very limited and you have to hack in various things, even basic stuff like codec support.
The other main reason was having multi-room setups and various playback devices like tablets etc. XBMC and Plex are vastly superior in this regard.
Now (ie since 13) XBMC is a reliable single box solution for TV/PVR as well, which was previously the only reason WMC was even a consideration. Having a media centre that can boot into a single 'ecosystem' for all your media types, with the ability to control it via tablets and phones, including browsing the media on the remote device, sending playback to other devices, all are stronger in XBMC and PLex than WMC
WMC is also slow and clunky on massive collections.

My media centre is now fully contained in the av cabinet controlled via the Yatse app, my NAS has the centralised db for the library, playback etc. I also run plex on the NAS which serves an alternative should there be a need. (my girlfriend likes plex on the Ipad and I admit the transcoding for mobile devices is a strength of PLex over XBMC. The beauty is both are free and Plex runs silently on the NAS, I can use it or just leave it.

When XBMC was new on the original XBOX it needed a lot of tweaking and config file editing etc . Now it is polished and runs out of the box, but the beauty is that level of customisation can still be done which makes it valuable in the never ending quest for a seamless, accessible and future proof whole house media solution

Really, its like comparing chalk and cheese. BUT, I haven't looked at WMC for at least a year so maybe Microsoft has caught up....for the first time.....ever
Specka is offline  
post #76 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 02:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
Exactly what I am trying to point out... FedEx goes to great lengths to correct ANY sender mistake and ensure the customer gets what they pay for... while on the other hand, Microsoft acknowledges the issue but turn their back anyway...

Wanna know why I think the analogy is wrong...
WMC is not flexible and has to obey the video delivery rules to the letter... MPC-HC on the hand ignores information that is intended for the correct delivery of video... assuming your explanation is correct...
FedEx is very flexible depending on customer needs, and does not ignore any information from customer regarding the delivery of packages...
Well, clearly you just missed the point of the analogy...

It isn't a matter of flexibility. If you want flexibility, then stick with MPC-HC. WMC isn't supposed to be flexible. It's supposed to obey content delivery standards.

In the analogy (did you even bother to read the anaology, or just one line that you keep making bold?) it was very clear that FedEx delivers the content as indicated by the sender. That's how WMC does it. If I send a letter to a specific address via FedEx that's where it will go unless some outside intervention happens. That's exactly what WMC does is follow the directions from the content provider.

That's the way Fed Ex operates.
That's the way WMC operates


The US mail on the other hand doesn't necessarily deliver a latter where it is addressed. They often take liberties with the delivery instructions and try to interpret where they think the letter should go. That's exactly that MPC-HC does... it ignores the explicit instructions given from the sender and instead does what it thinks is best.

That's the way the US Mail operates.
That's the way MPC-HC operates.


You can throw in a million other irrelevant factors if you want, but it doesn't change the overall point of the analogy... The US Mail, just like MPC-HC will often ignore explicit deliver instructions instead relying on their best hunch to deliver they way they think it should be delivered. Simple as that. That method isn't always correct.

Now I understand if you're the guy who's waiting on the envelope to arrive, you may prefer the US Mail approach. You might think it's great that they will try and reroute mail based on where they think you live instead of where a letter is actually addressed. Most of the time they probably get it right. And most of the time MPC-HC gets it right too. But both miss on occasion, so acting as if MPC-HC doesn't have it's own issues is disingenuous. I've had the US Mail deliver my mail incorrectly on several occasions because they thought they knew better than the people sending me mail.

The overall point here is that if something is sent incorrectly in the first place there is no way to guarantee that it will arrive properly. Not with a letter, and not with cable content. Garbage in -> Garbage out.

That's great that you like the way that MPC-HC ignores the progressive flag. That doesn't mean it is the "right" way or even the "best" way, it is simply a different way from how Microsoft handles it. I certainly don't know the legalities of it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find MS is bound by contract to deliver the content as it is broadcast.

Regardless, the fault is 100% on the companies encoding the content. You can dance around the issue all you want, but that is the root of the problem. Blaming Microsoft, shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #77 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 03:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
balky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Well, clearly you just missed the point of the analogy...

It isn't a matter of flexibility. If you want flexibility, then stick with MPC-HC. WMC isn't supposed to be flexible. It's supposed to obey content delivery standards.

In the analogy (did you even bother to read the anaology, or just one line that you keep making bold?) it was very clear that FedEx delivers the content as indicated by the sender. That's how WMC does it. If I send a letter to a specific address via FedEx that's where it will go unless some outside intervention happens. That's exactly what WMC does is follow the directions from the content provider.

That's the way Fed Ex operates.
That's the way WMC operates


The US mail on the other hand doesn't necessarily deliver a latter where it is addressed. They often take liberties with the delivery instructions and try to interpret where they think the letter should go. That's exactly that MPC-HC does... it ignores the explicit instructions given from the sender and instead does what it thinks is best.

That's the way the US Mail operates.
That's the way MPC-HC operates.


You can throw in a million other irrelevant factors if you want, but it doesn't change the overall point of the analogy... The US Mail, just like MPC-HC will often ignore explicit deliver instructions instead relying on their best hunch to deliver they way they think it should be delivered. Simple as that. That method isn't always correct.

Now I understand if you're the guy who's waiting on the envelope to arrive, you may prefer the US Mail approach. You might think it's great that they will try and reroute mail based on where they think you live instead of where a letter is actually addressed. Most of the time they probably get it right. And most of the time MPC-HC gets it right too. But both miss on occasion, so acting as if MPC-HC doesn't have it's own issues is disingenuous. I've had the US Mail deliver my mail incorrectly on several occasions because they thought they knew better than the people sending me mail.

The overall point here is that if something is sent incorrectly in the first place there is no way to guarantee that it will arrive properly. Not with a letter, and not with cable content. Garbage in -> Garbage out.

That's great that you like the way that MPC-HC ignores the progressive flag. That doesn't mean it is the "right" way or even the "best" way, it is simply a different way from how Microsoft handles it. I certainly don't know the legalities of it, but I wouldn't be surprised to find MS is bound by contract to deliver the content as it is broadcast.

Regardless, the fault is 100% on the companies encoding the content. You can dance around the issue all you want, but that is the root of the problem. Blaming Microsoft, shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Heh heh heh... you just won't get it...

The way FedEx operates... Get the package delivered ON TIME... whatever it takes... wrong address, wrong house number, traffic jam on the way... all what not...

The way WMC operates... anything out of line such as a wrongly set flag is enough of an excuse...

What people are not happy with is Microsoft laying the blame squarely at the feet of the image sender and not doing anything...
Have you realized that video card makers chose to put in the effort in assisting users when they could as well blame the image senders and do nothing...

And BTW... I don't use MPC-HC... nothing media related in my home runs on windows for like 5 years already...
balky is offline  
post #78 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 03:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
Heh heh heh... you just won't get it...

The way FedEx operates... Get the package delivered ON TIME... whatever it takes... wrong address, wrong house number, traffic jam on the way... all what not...

The way WMC operates... anything out of line such as a wrongly set flag is enough of an excuse...

What people are not happy with is Microsoft laying the blame squarely at the feet of the image sender and not doing anything...
Have you realized that video card makers chose to put in the effort in assisting users when they could as well blame the image senders and do nothing...

And BTW... I don't use MPC-HC... nothing media related in my home runs on windows for like 5 years already...
Point blank. Yes or no.

If XBMC displayed a show that should be 16:9 as 4:3, because it was originally encoded as 4:3 would you consider that a bug? Yes or no?

Given that same scenario would you blame XBMC for not displaying the content correctly? Yes or No?

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #79 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 03:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
bac522's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 51
To the OP's original question, my HTPC is based on Linux and I don't believe WMC runs on Linux, hence the reason why I use XBMC & Plex.
bac522 is online now  
post #80 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 10:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mike99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
It is an encoding problem. That isn't an excuse. It's reality. Regardless of what the symptoms might be, Microsoft is simply following the standards set forth by other organizations. Give WMC a proper video stream, and you get proper output. Give it an improperly encoded video stream and... What do you really expect to happen? What do you expect it to fix? If the video stream was encoded with the wrong AR, would you expect it to display properly anyway? Would MPC-HC or XBMC display it in the proper AR? Of course not. Would you say that either has a bug because it doesn't display that video properly? Of course not. Because it isn't a problem with the software it's a problem with the video stream.

Furthermore, just because MPC-HC and XBMC ignore the frame encoding flag in the video stream, and it displays some content in a better manner than what WMC does, that doesn't mean that it displays everything right. It's either forcing everything to be displayed as progressive, which means that interlaced content isn't displayed properly, or it is using some other means for detecting if content is interlaced, so it's anybody's guess if/when it will display interlaced content properly.

The reason that MS suggests getting a new video card or updating drivers, is because that is the only thing a user can do to remedy the problem. Unless you're working in the control room at CBS or whatever network is displaying the 29/59 issue, there is nothing else you can do about it.
At the consumer level lets say a person does use a new video card or drivers to correct the 29/59 stuttering. However you're saying the consumer may still have other issues with interlacing. Since CBS or the cable company are not going to correct anything on their end, what can a consumer do to correct any interlacing issues? From what you're saying the consumer is helpless, is that correct?
Mike99 is offline  
post #81 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike99 View Post
At the consumer level lets say a person does use a new video card or drivers to correct the 29/59 stuttering. However you're saying the consumer may still have other issues with interlacing. Since CBS or the cable company are not going to correct anything on their end, what can a consumer do to correct all issues related to the 29/59 problem?
There is no 100% automatic cure all for improperly encoded/flagged video.

Garbage in = Garbage Out.

Nothing is going to change that.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #82 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 11:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,547
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike99 View Post
At the consumer level lets say a person does use a new video card or drivers to correct the 29/59 stuttering. However you're saying the consumer may still have other issues with interlacing
That was said. It doesn't happen to be accurate, nor was it stated from personal experience but rather conjecture
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #83 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
That was said. It doesn't happen to be accurate, nor was it stated from personal experience but rather conjecture

Replacing the card and fiddling with the drivers is no guarantee that the issue will be completely resolved. That's not my experience, that's the experience of others based on the thread. And I believe it to be accurate. To prove otherwise, you'll need to demonstrate that replacing the video card with any combination of card and drivers will resolve the issue. I doubt you're prepared to do so.

As far as potential issues with interlacing, that is if you use an player outside of WMC that ignores the progressive flag. Yes, that is conjecture, and yes I still stand by it, as 1) displaying interlaced content without deinterlacing will result in degraded picture quality. 2) Displaying progressive content that is run through a deinterlacer will result in degraded picture quality, and 3) no means of guessing if content is interlaced or progressive is going to be 100% accurate, so there will always be a scenario where the potential to display content wrong is present.

embedded link proves point 1 and 2. Feel free to show me anything that disproves point 3.

Was that succinct enough for you?

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #84 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 12:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,547
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
3) no means of guessing if content is interlaced or progressive is going to be 100% accurate, so there will always be a scenario where the potential to display content wrong is present
Playback in xbmc with de-interlacing set to auto handles it the way WMC should, i vs p is not ignored but analyzed. The majority of cable recording source will be i. For me, ESPN and ABC are the only 2 I've noticed using p source. When an i recording is played back, auto de-interlacing kicks in. When p, de-interlacing is left off. Ignoring any broadcast i->p or p->i change at that point affects PQ of commercials, to which I don't give a rats-patoot, and broadcast interlaced frame pollution (looking at you ABC HD). If it gets it wrong when a stream is picked up mid-commercial during live playback (quite rare) the setting is in the gui to force on or force off, and stopping / restarting live playback also takes care of the issue
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #85 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
Playback in xbmc with de-interlacing set to auto handles it the way WMC should, i vs p is not ignored but analyzed. The majority of cable recording source will be i. For me, ESPN and ABC are the only 2 I've noticed using p source. When an i recording is played back, auto de-interlacing kicks in. When p, de-interlacing is left off. Ignoring any broadcast i->p or p->i change at that point affects PQ of commercials, to which I don't give a rats-patoot, and broadcast interlaced frame pollution (looking at you ABC HD). If it gets it wrong when a stream is picked up mid-commercial during live playback (quite rare) the setting is in the gui to force on or force off, and stopping / restarting live playback also takes care of the issue
You not giving a rat's patoot about being wrong doesn't make you right.

And XBMC absolutely ignores the content flag, as I previously stated. You either follow it or you don't there is no "sorta" in this. Yes, XBMC does analyze the content, and as you've just admitted, doesn't always get it right, so thanks for completely proving my point for me.

For the record, I think it's great that you're happy with the way XBMC deals with improperly encoded content. I'm glad you're happy when it doesn't work right too. I just think it's funny that you consider it a bug when it happens to WMC and a feature when it happens in XBMC.

Oh, and same questions I threw out there for balky...

Point blank. Yes or no.

If XBMC displayed a show that should be 16:9 as 4:3, because it was originally encoded as 4:3 would you consider that a bug? Yes or no?

Given that same scenario would you blame XBMC for not displaying the content correctly? Yes or No?

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #86 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,716
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 811
<- Grabs more popcorn.



It's kinda nice to be absolutely void of any caring and just a watcher for a change.

Oddly I kinda agree with Ajhieb in a lot of ways. It's like the 0-255 "bug" in some ways too. That fact Nvidia and Intel do not pass 0-255 over HDMI isn't actually a bug; they are actually following the HDMI whitepaper to the letter of the law. It just happens a lot of folks want to run full PC scale 0-255 with HTPC for various reasons (optimal PQ and madvr processing) and the fact AMD supported this was a reason why people liked AMD. In reality AMD was the one that was "wrong" but it was also right at the same time because it was giving people a solution they wanted. People have since figured out registry hacking and all that to allow Nvidia cards or Intel GPU's to pass a 0-255 signal but it was never a supported feature because it was technically "wrong" the way the MDF looked at it.

So I guess I just enjoy watching this thread more than debating in it. I think I see good and bad on both sides of this. I will just enjoy my popcorn this go around....


-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #87 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 01:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,716
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 811
<- Grabs more popcorn.



It's kinda nice to be absolutely void of any caring and just a watcher for a change.

Oddly I kinda agree with Ajhieb in a lot of ways. It's like the 0-255 "bug" in some ways too. That fact Nvidia and Intel do not pass 0-255 over HDMI isn't actually a bug; they are actually following the HDMI whitepaper to the letter of the law. It just happens a lot of folks want to run full PC scale 0-255 with HTPC for various reasons (optimal PQ and madvr processing) and the fact AMD supported this was a reason why people liked AMD. In reality AMD was the one that was "wrong" but it was also right at the same time because it was giving people a solution they wanted. People have since figured out registry hacking and all that to allow Nvidia cards or Intel GPU's to pass a 0-255 signal but it was never a supported feature because it was technically "wrong" the way the MDF looked at it.

So I guess I just enjoy watching this thread more than debating in it. I think I see good and bad on both sides of this. I will just enjoy my popcorn this go around....


-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #88 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 09:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
balky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Point blank. Yes or no.

If XBMC displayed a show that should be 16:9 as 4:3, because it was originally encoded as 4:3 would you consider that a bug? Yes or no?

Given that same scenario would you blame XBMC for not displaying the content correctly? Yes or No?
I was ignoring these... but would be a Yes on the two occasions...

If XBMC would display a 16:9 show as 4:3 that is a bug from a user perspective. (period)
Forget all the talk about the original encoding... that is just a lame excuse for not getting it right...
It is kinda akin to scanning an old picture and using photoshop to scale and enhance it, then your printer prints it out in the original size afterwards...

As I previously commented, I stopped doing DVR on the PC since the days of windows vista and never looked back...
I think if WMC is good enough for those who use it there really isn't any point in all of this debate...

Over and out...
balky is offline  
post #89 of 97 Old 07-07-2014, 10:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,392
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 305 Post(s)
Liked: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
I was ignoring these... but would be a Yes on the two occasions...

If XBMC would display a 16:9 show as 4:3 that is a bug from a user perspective. (period)
Forget all the talk about the original encoding... that is just a lame excuse for not getting it right...
It is kinda akin to scanning an old picture and using photoshop to scale and enhance it, then your printer prints it out in the original size afterwards...

As I previously commented, I stopped doing DVR on the PC since the days of windows vista and never looked back...
I think if WMC is good enough for those who use it there really isn't any point in all of this debate...

Over and out...
Okay. That explains it. You simply don't understand what a bug is. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Botching the original encoding/flagging isn't some lame excuse. It's reality. And no software that I'm aware of will fix an incorrect source AR without manual intervention. Period. There is no "magic" fix for correcting bad source material. The reason there is no magic fix for it is there is no magic way to detect how it is supposed to be encoded/flagged. That's why the flags were created in the first place.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #90 of 97 Old 07-08-2014, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,547
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Okay. That explains it. You simply don't understand what a bug is. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Like most normal people in the world, I do not care whether you call it a bug. It has been referred to as a bug for so long that it's hard not to just say "29/59 bug"

No it's not a software bug. WMC is doing exactly what it intends to do. It just turns out that what it intends to do is a poor choice, and the user has no ability to change that on the fly without risking playback instability and/or pulling out a keyboard/mouse to use a filter tweaker or alter graphics settings.

In addition to not caring whether or not it is referred to as a bug . . . I do not care if you use literal by it's original dictionary definition or it's newly adopted secondary use as a general point of emphasis. I also don't really care when people umbrella the term transcoding to include remuxing, transmuxing, resizing, transizing, rerating, transrating, re-encoding, and/or transcoding. I've asked people to know the difference, but I can see the forest for the trees and won't continually harp on it without adding anything to the overall conversation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
You not giving a rat's patoot about being wrong doesn't make you right.

And XBMC absolutely ignores the content flag, as I previously stated. You either follow it or you don't there is no "sorta" in this. Yes, XBMC does analyze the content, and as you've just admitted, doesn't always get it right, so thanks for completely proving my point for me.
Have you ever used XBMC? "Absolutely ignores the content flag" is absolutely incorrect (once again, I don't care if you feel it's absolutely, relatively, or generally incorrect). Obviously you think it's correct or you wouldn't have said it, but in common practice stream analysis gets it right over 95% of the time. When it's wrong pressing "stop" then "play" will correct it. Doing that in WMC will accomplish nothing. If restarting playback is too much of a chore you can always just grab the remote and press "Enter/OK" then select the Video OSD and toggle interlacing on the fly. Hence forth, in the rare opportunity that "ignoring [interlaced frames]" (or as you prefer to keep saying -- the content flag -- though the term flag sounds disharmonious to me regarding the topic of interlaced vs progressive source material) in the rare opportunity changes are ignored to the detriment of PQ, the user does not have to endure "other issues with interlaced playback" -- ie the ability to fix on the fly is indeed a feature, and the inability to fix without keyboard/mouse intervention and/or including hardware-musical-chairs is a setback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
For the record, I think it's great that you're happy with the way XBMC deals with improperly encoded content. I'm glad you're happy when it doesn't work right too. I just think it's funny that you consider it a bug when it happens to WMC and a feature when it happens in XBMC.

Oh, and same questions I threw out there for balky...

Point blank. Yes or no.

If XBMC displayed a show that should be 16:9 as 4:3, because it was originally encoded as 4:3 would you consider that a bug? Yes or no?

Given that same scenario would you blame XBMC for not displaying the content correctly? Yes or No?
Hopefully I've reinforced how little I care as to whether or not it is called a bug. XBMC will congruently resize content to until one of it's edges reaches a border when viewing mode is set to normal. Several other forced AR options are available in the on screen video menu, so they can once again be changed on the fly.

If it were common for content to frequently swap ARs mid-stream and XBMC didn't already provide me an opportunity to adjust it on the fly then I would blame the resulting picture on its lacking feature set
Dark_Slayer is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off