- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Hic.
Good stuff.How does MPC HC do "rendering" Megan?
Very satisfactorily. The robots just look phenominal - and I'm using a CRT!
How to play MKV files?
- Thread starter Greenlizard0
- Start date
Very satisfactorily. The robots just look phenominal - and I'm using a CRT!
What CPU do you have? I have an AMD AM2+ 6000 which I'm quite annoyed isn't clearly fast enough.
i have a Q6600 @ Stock, 4gb RAM, Vista Utly 64bit
stopped and started instantly also moving to about part of film starts perfect, CPU goes to 20 max
cant fault VLC 0.9.8a at all
i use the standard windows media player 11 with ffdshow + the haali media splitter works a treat on mkv files of any size (watched one straight off the HDD of my server over a gigabit lan, but fairly sure 100mb lan would cope as well)
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,303
- Location
- Sheffield
So you want to remove parts of the film to fill the screen?
54mbs wireless is more than enough.
even better
I have to say, one of my friends swears by VLC, uses it for everything, and he commented the other night on how it drops a frame or 2 on MKV files larger than 8gb. his set up is pretty decent (q6600, 8800gtx, 4gb ram etc). I wonder if there is somethin about large MKV files that VLC isnt 100% happy about?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,605
- Location
- LU7
Yeah same thing for me. Apart from spec which is actually better than that.even better
I have to say, one of my friends swears by VLC, uses it for everything, and he commented the other night on how it drops a frame or 2 on MKV files larger than 8gb. his set up is pretty decent (q6600, 8800gtx, 4gb ram etc). I wonder if there is somethin about large MKV files that VLC isnt 100% happy about?
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
If that's the unfortunate result then yes. It's just stupid that I buy a blu-ray and it doesn't fill my screen.
Core AVC, pity it's not free.
Use ffdshow instead. It's free, the quality is the same and, in my tests, the latest tryout versions use about the same amount of CPU power as Core AVC.
Core AVC is a waste of money. In a market full of free alternatives, they're charging for something which gives you nothing extra.
With all due respect, it's not the slightest bit "stupid" and I'm staggered how often I'm seeing this question/issue crop up.
If anything, what's "stupid" is those expecting all films to fit their television screen perfectly because "well it's all widescreen innit?".
It doesn't take too much thinking to realise that virtually all big films are films at around 2.35:1 aspect ratio which is around 21:9, whilst widescreen televisions are 16:9 as this is the widest that it's practical to make them. Whilst broadcast TV has adopted the 16:9 aspect as it's the obvious thing to do when all your consumers have 16:9 screens, you can hardly expect the film industry to abandon the very wide aspect people demand in cinemas and output everything to fit televisions instead.
What's the alternative? Either build 21:9 televisions, which are going to be a bit unweildy (and then people would moan that broadcast TV has bars at the left and right) or chop the sides of the film off, or distort the image to fit.
Frankly, whilst choosing to watch a film with the edges chopped off or the image distorted just to avoid the black bars at the top and bottom is entirely the choice of the individual, I question the sanity of anyone who invests in a high-definition TV and blu-ray player to go with it, only to knacker the resulting image in this way.
So it's been a waste of money despite FFDShow only just catching up on CPU usage?
Not everyone runs high-powered desktops that could handle the far higher CPU usage of FFDShow. CoreAVC was a godsend for those using slower systems.
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Not everybody demands the ratio of the cinema to be matched on their tv sets at home. As you say, there are people out there who do wish it could be different.
I don't like viewing widescreen on a tv unit. It'd be a far better experience if I didn't have large chunks of the screen go to waste.
I didn't say widescreen should be scrapped - I said that there should be a choice of ratios without distortion. I honestly don't mind missing a little off the sides.
Well it is an option, but once you try it, you'll feel stupid for even thinking that it would work when you see people cut off the sides.
The difference in width between 16:9 and 2.35:1 is about 30%, how could you watch a movie filmed in 2.35:1 with 30% chopped off the sides? You wouldn't get the whole picture.
Also, the reason 2.35:1 is used, is because it's the best representation of the human field of view. So in cinemas, the movie will almost fill your entire field of vision.
Sure, it'd be better if every film filled the screen but we can't always have what we want. I'm not taking issue with wanting films to be this way, I'm expressing my amazement that some people seem so determined to make their films fill the screen that they're prepared to lose part of or distort the image.
And, as I said, I think you're mad. You invest in an HD TV and Bluray player because you want the ultimate in quality but you're prepared to chuck around 24% of the picture in the bin and view the film in a way it was never intended to be seen? Bonkers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,246
What CPU do you have? I have an AMD AM2+ 6000 which I'm quite annoyed isn't clearly fast enough.
I only have a X2 3800, and I can play 1080 files fine, but they do stutter and sometimes take longer to load than say if I used that Media Centre Classic!
So I'd vote MCC!