POST A COMMENT

39 Comments

Back to Article

  • jpowell5 - Thursday, February 02, 2006 - link

    Is there anyone here actually using the latest version of Cyberlink's H.264 Decoder with Windows Media Player?

    I have yet to get it play an AVC H.264 Video clip. I've tried clips endoded with the MainConcept H.264 encoder, QuickTime and Nero H.264 encoder. None of these clips will invoke the Cyberlink decoder and play the clip.

    Please let me know if you've had some success with this and what your system configuration is.

    Thanks,

    Josh
    Reply
  • Bencoder - Thursday, March 09, 2006 - link

    Just get the CoreAVC h.264 decoder and the latest version of WMP Classic. Save yourself the 15 bucks. Works like a champ. See lots of good resources and comments about the decoder application at Doom9. Warning! The version released by the company is not open-source and is only a beta. Apparently the full release version of CoreAVC is not going to be a piece of shareware. Reply
  • Davebo - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link

    http://www.ati.com/technology/h264.html">http://www.ati.com/technology/h264.html

    http://www.cyberlink.com/cinema/ati/h264_decoder/e...">http://www.cyberlink.com/cinema/ati/h264_decoder/e...

    I thougt this was to be free? Not much different than PureVideo now, is it?
    Reply
  • apriest - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link

    Yeah, that bites... Reply
  • Tujan - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    ATI promised us H.264 decode acceleration

    ....of H.264 movies possible on lower end systems and have less of a performance impact on all systems. ATI's work on H.264 decode acceleration today is extremely important because H.264 is the codec of choice for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

    Gosh do you think that somebody could name H.264 decode acceleration something less cryptic sounding ? Just what IS H.264 decode , is it on my CD,my DVD,...does my camera make one.? Is it HDTV,or 'broadcast signaling,..or a 'format ? [ ]

    I had let AutoUpdates run on my computer here.So WMP 10 was installed.I have a DVD player/writer of wich I had taken for granted thinking in terms of usage of it w/o its software complements.I for a new configuration of software had uninstalled a proprieties DVD player. So when I plopped my DVD into the player so late at night,WMP (the only thing on the machine for 'media) 10 would not play the DVD w/o a 'codec.
    Blissfully wondering through Microsofts website,the MSN.com looking for DVD codecs,I found that 'sure,you can watch your DVD,but you will have to purchase a 15$ software codec.
    Well long story short,the DVD/Writer 'came with a DVD codec.Named to any other name than the DVD player itself though through its complementing 'lite'DVD movie player.Wich I had reinstalled.Think you purchase a DVD writer,that you can write gigs of information to,yet you have to have yet another component to look at a DVD.

    Annyway,Im involved in trying to figure out what the best approach would be to creating self designed media- movies,data etc for use between the different devices that 'create them,and play them back.Weird thing is some equipment will do a given format,so that it is not compatible to what your playback equipment/software my be compatible with. Mpeg,MPeg 1,Mpeg 2,AVI,.Mov etc.All considerations,now H.264 ? Think the information you create -the receiver (mom,dad,gramps,boss) must be handled by the the same sustanance of knowledge ,and equipment you used to create it.That is you may have a good codec,but your going to have to 'deck the users,and viewers of your work with the appropriate contributive compatible equipment.

    And I think that a device that does a single output is missing some screws if it is thought this is the only thing going.

    Happy Holidays.

    Reply
  • ViRGE - Sunday, December 18, 2005 - link

    It seems to be a good start from ATI, but I'd really like to see more options in their converter. Assuming the output quality is up to par with what DivX/XviD can offer, I'd like to see them enable users to select specific MPEG4 encoding options(B-Frames, Qpel, etc) that the current encoders offer, otherwise the program may not be of much use. Eventually a full-fledged Windows codec for all of this is also going to be something encoders will want, as the ideal situation will be to hook in VirtualDub, AVISynth, and other encoding apps in to the GPU accelerated encoder, in order to utilize their editing and remastering features. What they're offering right now is more like a reduced version of Dr. Divx, which is useful for some people, but not enough for others.

    Still, this is a good start, especially the H.264 decoding support. I only hope ATI can come through on GPU-assisted encoding like they've promissed, as that's been a holy grail that has escaped ATI and Nvidia for some time now.
    Reply
  • bloc - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link

    When the x1600 line came out, the reviewers gave mediocre reviews as they thought the price was going to be $200+. Now that it's in the $140 US range, it's roughly the same price as the 6600 GT. This alters the $$ vs FPS ratio of the x1600's by a lot.

    I'd recommend the 6600 GT for agp, but the x1600 looks like a good option for pcix boards.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link

    With ATI making available for free the video encoding/decoding software for their VPUs, do you think this might prompt nVidia to make the PureVideo software also available for free? The current situation where you have to either pay up to $50 or use a keygen to continue to use it after 30 days is stupid. Reply
  • ViRGE - Sunday, December 18, 2005 - link

    It's unlikely Nvidia will change, and I'm a bit surprised even ATI is. MPEG decoders cost money to properly license, and right now ATI is eating the cost for a H.264 license(but not a MPEG2 license it seems). I really doubt Nvidia is going to want to eat up the costs retroactively, but weirder things have happened before. Reply
  • deathwalker - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link

    Surely you jest!! Not today, toworrow or ever! Reply
  • Anton74 - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link

    Hmm, interesting. In http://www.chip.de/artikel/c1_artikel_17670022.htm...">this article, which apparently talks about a different revision of the same software (looks practically identical, but is entitled "ATi Avivo Transcode Wizard" in the program's title bar, as opposed to "ATi Avivo Video Converter" in the AT article), the author says the GPU hardware is used to speed things up (which is quite believable if the benchmarks are accurate, which show up to a 5x increase with a X1300 Pro assisted transcode versus a sole FX-57 [!!]).

    Something's gotta be up here - I have trouble believing that a very significant speed increase (~2x - 5x) can be achieved without either a GPU assist, or very different output quality (which is why it's very important to not only measure transcoding time, but also compare video quality, as has already been pointed out - otherwise you don't know if you're comparing apples to apples).

    If I may ask, how did you determine that the GPU is not used, especially since the program won't work without one?

    Either way, these X1000 GPU's are looking more and more attractive, despite not quite keeping up with their competition some of the time in pure gaming performance (for similarly priced cards, of course).
    Reply
  • OCedHrt - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Maybe it makes use of GPU assisted decode, but not encode. Reply
  • Calin - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    I thought about it too - but the decode isn't so much faster by GPU assisted, compared to decode by software. There was at most twice the speed of decoding using GPU, and encoding time should be greater than decoding. Reply
  • irev210 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    I just picked up an X1800XT and I had a bad fan out of the box. Luckly I ordered two, so I just put in the 2nd one while I replace the first and install it in a friends machine. I called ATi to RMA because their website was 1/2 broken 1/2 working at the time, and the guy wouldnt RMA it over the phone, which was pretty sad.


    I guess I got unlucky, but the 2nd card I got had a bent bracket. Took me about 15 minutes to get the card installed even after taking off the bracket and straighting it the best I could do.

    VERY happy with the cards actual performance though. The AVIVO sounds great. I have a replayTV and I record a lot of shows. Using DVARCHIVE, I store them to my PC and shrink/encode them to watch them on my pocketPC phone on the subway. I would love to speed that process up with AVIVO.


    ATI guys-- if you read this, do something about your retarded tech support, and try to make sure that when the dude in china puts together this card that the fan works. The guy wouldnt even just send me a fan. He then argued that I had to call the computer company that my X1800XT came inside. I was like, you do know that ATi sells video cards under their own label right? He put me on hold after giving him my serial # and said, "YES, you have an ATI card, go to ATI.COM and create an RMA" even though I asked to do it over the phone because I was having problems accessing the ATI website. I then told him I wanted this 2nd card to put in a computer for chirstmas and he said "oh Im sorry, RMA takes around 10+ days".


    Anyway, RECAP:

    Cards performance is MUCH better than expected (switched from 7800GTX 256 SLI)

    NO it doesnt match SLI performance, but it works great.

    This will hold me over till the next gen graphcis card
    Reply
  • Generic Guy - Sunday, December 18, 2005 - link

    In other words: ATI's reduced warranty and crappy customer service rears its ugly head, once again. Especially right before Christmas, yeesh.

    I've had two ATI Radeon products, plus a Rage-128 before that. I've been more or less happy, but been a victim of the "bad drivers" days and remember these types of issues to this day. It really seems to be getting to the point where ATI is bound and determined to kill themselves off with stupid paper launches of non-existant products, and horrendously worthless support on premium-priced products.

    Sorry ATI. I'll just keep my Nero Recode and choose not to buy your products any longer.
    Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - link

    Bitter much?

    I had the Rage 128 too (Rage Fury Pro AGP) and yes, it bit. And drivers were lousy. So was support. And I sent it back, and went with a TNT2-Ultra based card instead.

    But if you're basing your opinion on a card released in late `98/early `99, you're not living in today's world. ATI has made major strides. Drivers are no longer an issue, and haven't been since (at the very latest) the Radeon 9xxx lines of cards.

    Also, I haven't needed support on either my Radeon 9700 or my Radeon X800XL. They've worked right out of the box, without issue. Your current complains about support (for BETA software no less) don't seem germane to the article.

    If you want to gripe, have a legit one. Paper launches I can understand. Not supporting the earlier Radeon X-series of cards (X8xx for example), I can also understand; they're quite recent, and I'm a bit disappointed myself by that. But complaining about the past when it isn't representative of the present just doesn't fly.

    P.S. While I happen to have the three-year ATI warranty as opposed to the reduced one, I've never had to use the warranty on any of their products I've purchased (VGA Wonder 512k, Graphics Pro Turbo, on up to my current cards and a TV Wonder PCI as well). If a card doesn't die in the first year, it's not likely to die at all, unless it is pushed (i.e., overclocked).
    Reply
  • Hacp - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    This makes me want to get a X1300 SOOO bad. Do they make a AIW card with theater550 in it??? Reply
  • Rys - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Theather 550 has a problem (communicating with the GPU over the VIP) which stops it being used on AIW boards. Reply
  • Chadder007 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    What they lack in releasing of hardware on time, they come through on features, and quality drivers now. Still waiting for AGP X1000 cards.. :D Reply
  • Jedi2155 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Excellent!! It looks like something is finally going right on the ATI side of things!!! Now if only they can get craking on making the R580 appear!!! Reply
  • ShadowVlican - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    how bout a review on the quality of the transcoded files? we all know that all encoders are not equal, that is why some mpeg2 encoders cost more than my car Reply
  • mongoosesRawesome - Saturday, December 17, 2005 - link

    yea, i agree. speed is all well and good, but if the output sucks then why bother? Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    quote:

    The other item we didn't touch on that makes its appearance in the Catalyst 5.13 drivers is significantly improved video playback quality. ATI didn't have all of their Avivo ducks in a row when the X1000 series launched, but with Catalyst 5.13 they are looking to improve a number of the issues we noted in our first Avivo video quality article. We will be working on a follow-up to that piece in the near future to take a look at exactly what Catalyst 5.13 brings us in terms of video quality.


    Read the article.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    He's talking about ENcoding quality for transcoding purposes, not playback quality.

    If a test is done on MPEG2 encoding quality, I would suggest using CCE SP as the comparison encoder as it is generally considered the best available (though it is a touch expensive to purchase).
    Reply
  • tfranzese - Monday, December 19, 2005 - link

    Read a different article then. AT isn't the only place to cover this (FiringSquad had some IQ coverage). Reply
  • Andyvan - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    I'm wondering if you have both a cheap ATI card and an NVIDIA card installed in your computer, whether you would be allowed to run the converter.

    -- Andyvan
    Reply
  • Rys - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Yes, as long as one of the boards is an X1K, the transcoding tool will run. I currently have a GeForce 7800 GTX as my primary board, and an X1800 XL as the secondary one. The new driver, decoder and transcoding tool all run fine. Reply
  • synic - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    read the article, it says X1000 or greater only Reply
  • Araemo - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    "we will look at other performance comparisons upon request from you all"

    Just one: Compare DVD->Divx against AutoGK(Using the official Divx.com codec?) Does the ATI tool even support ripping from an actual DVD(Or decrypted DVD files) to another format? I am curious.
    Reply
  • fnord123 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Please compare against the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser...">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser.... A lot of Media Center Extender and XBox 360 people are using it to recode their .avi files to .wmv (Divx isn't supported by 360/MCExtenders). It is a slow process so if the ATI accelerator speeds it up they will have a bunch of buyers! Reply
  • Pete84 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Looks like the AIW series got yet another shit in the multimedia arm. Capture video and then convert it to whichever format you desire, very nice. Reply
  • vijay333 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    yes...another "shot" indeed :) Reply
  • Pete84 - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Oops, that is what happens when I rush typing :p Reply
  • RandomFool - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    I'm just waiting for the more creative users to show up. :) Reply
  • ksherman - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Thanks AT! you guys ROCK! I do a bit of video converting after I finish a movie project, and it seems as though this proggie might work a lot faster than the other ones I have used! Reply
  • ksherman - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    one question though, if this tool is eventually released with GPU assisted recoding, is this going to be an ATI-only product, or will I be able to use it with my 7800?? Reply
  • Thalyn - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    Even though it currently uses the CPU to process the transcode, the final product will depend on features present on the X1x00 series and not on the NV4x (6x00/7x00) series. Specifically, it makes use of GPGPU - a function set that allows the graphics card to process more generic code, rather than just graphics, for features such as physics or, in this case, video transcoding.

    It's true that SM3 cards have been used for this purpose before (I recall an audio DSP program written to use a 6800 Ultra, since it could do the task about 5x faster than a P4 3.0e), but this time around it's been designed to work outside of DirectX - ergo, ATi only unless nVidia incorperates GPGPU at a later date.

    -Jack
    Reply
  • ksherman - Friday, December 16, 2005 - link

    well, it seems I was a little too quick on the draw... doesnt work at all with nVidia cards :(... guess i really shouldnt have expected that, or just read the little two sentence sumary on the main page. alas, I am still saddened :( Reply
  • karoldude - Monday, June 28, 2010 - link

    cool staff ,thannks for sharing.
    This <a href="http://www.best-video-converter.net">video converter</a> is great , i have tried it.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now