CoreAVC 2.0.0 released

64 bit is supported

I used to think this was a must have. But now with dxva supported on most software and with free codecs. Not really sure its worth it.

cuda support is usefull when you want to use a rendeder (like madVr) that not support dxva and your cpu isn't able to decoder the video stream (bottleneck)

moreover it will allow you to have some spare cpu cicles to use for ffdshow post processing

BHH

The last version had horrible quality compared to all other codecs - is this one any better?

every decoder should give the same uncompressed frames as output (error rounding permitting)

afaik coreavc claim to be a standard decoder... you should not see difference with ffdshow or mpc-hc (without post processing)

BHH

How do you figure?

By that line of thinking, then shouldn't all of them be equally processor intensive? Why bother with any of them over any one you already have?

-Suntan

it's a matter of fact. why produce and sell a decoder not spec compliant ?
the first time you get an artifact due to bad decoding, you will remove the decoder...


absolutely not. Every decoder use its own routines (coded in different way, from assembly , to use sse2 , sse3 or more..)
every decoder can use the most of any supported routines from cpu and cicles..
every decoder is more or less smp ready...

is sure that once you have a decoder able to fully decode the baseline/medium and high profile (and NOTE that coreavc 1.9.5 ISN'T able to decode every features of high profile.., while 2.0 is at least able to decoder every features NOW available in x264.exe) stick with this, or use another.. if you prefer

BHH

I've never been with it, I meet my h264 needs with a free decoder.

Anyway, if your saying that every decoder will give you the same result when decoding a lossy encoded video, I'll just take your word for it.


-Suntan

With built in support for AVC in win 7 OR mpc video decoder...what advantage does this have other the others, that are free nonetheless?

coreavc has main pourpose (imho) with cuda, otherwise ffdshow ( and all dss based decoders) or dxva decoder are just ok

BHH

CoreAVC still has its uses. For example, if you're dealing with subtitles and an underpowered CPU (e.g. ION systems). DirectVobSub breaks DXVA so if you're using Windows Media Center and don't want to launch external programs (e.g. MPC-HC) to get subtitles, CoreAVC is pretty much the only way you can get hardware assisted decoding.

Since I already had Core 1.xx, upgrade only cost me $5 - about the price of a hamburger but without all the calories.

Agreed. No use for it anymore when I get 10% cpu on 1080p with dxva enabled. I remember using it on an old laptop years ago to watch 720p though.

With ffdshow with some mkv files I have artifacts, but wit CoreAVC 2 I dont see any artifacts with those files.

CoreAVC 2.0 works well for me using even a good old Nvidia 8500. For my setup and content, I have every input/output enabled, 0-255, 0-255, Deinterlacing=Hardware, Include color space=Autodetect, Deblocking=Skip when safe (deblocking softens video to my eyes; but needed sometimes for some some content on my setup), Aggressive deinterlacing, Crop 1088 to 1080=disabled, Force VMR AR correction=Enabled, Prefered=Enabled, User Tray Icon=disabled, Prefer CUDA acceleration=disabled. CoreAVC 2.0 handles rare H.264 50FPS 1080i AVC content better on my 60Hz LCD display than CoreAVC 1.x. I still have my good old PowerDVD 8 H.264 decoder as well as backup; but haven't used it in a while.

Have to say - I tried CoreAVC as well as MPC-HC and I found both of them had bad quality compared to just using the free DivX H.264 decoder

Not sure why this would change, but the video was a little less "smooth" (not sure how else to put it) with the first two. I was hoping it would be better, but I reverted back to the DivX codec for H.264 and the quality is perfect. Not trying to endorse DivX because I really don't care about them at all, just stating what I found.