AVStoDVD Support Thread

[gizzin]

When I hit start, I get the following error from HC.

ERROR, can't open dbs file, invalid path?

[Darksoul71]

@gizzin:
HCEnc has currently a small parsing bug for lossless and dbs file settings.

@MrC: For a workaround look here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...2&postcount=65

[PatchWorKs]

Originally Posted by gizzin

patchworks, mediacoder... what are you smoking?

Nothing (at the moment).

But please motivate your sentence, so we can all understand why not...

Originally Posted by Darksoul71

Searching for another burning / ISO tool just to fullfil GPL requirements is a waste of time IMO.

Being a tool developer myself I would rather choose
- move away from sourceforge
- release my tool source under any license but not GPL

Investing time in anything else doesn´t help the tool
and hence doesn´t help the users.

The same thing goes for building two different packages
(GPL / Non-GPL) or developing a downloader for "Non GPL"
tools.

Well, then I don't understant why AVStoDVD is open source.

The simplest solution is to close the source right now (and prepare yourself to be sued by other closed source tools devs)...

Just point of views.

I would prefer to invest few hours to search alternatives.

[Sir Didymus]

Originally Posted by PatchWorKs

Well, then I don't understant why AVStoDVD is open source.

And I don't undestand your refusal to understand this simple and linear concept: that open source is characteristic of a piece of code, where the author is happy of showing and sharing all of the parts of his creative work. This has nothing to do with the licensing contraints of GPL. VobBlanker and PgcEdit are brilliant examples of topmost level tools, distributed outside the GPL domain, and whose code is open and freely available.

Also, many users are very happy about using some given closed source tools or components for objective technical reasons (or for subjective quality reasons). For these users the performance, the quality, or other reasons are more important than the availability of the source code.

Such reasons should be respected.

For these users the availability of the source code is simply not relevant/not interesting/not useful.

So, please try here to respect what other users like more.

Your point of view is clear and understood, but please now, let the author of DVD2AVS think about making his steps to understand what to do, without the pressure of further (little interesting) posts on the same licensing issue subject from your side.

Sorry for being so explicit, especially with a colleague from Italy.

Cheers,
SD

[Darksoul71]

Well, then I don't understant why AVStoDVD is open source.

Because you want give other peoples the chance to look at your tool ?

The simplest solution is to close the source right now (and prepare yourself to be sued by other closed source tools devs)...

You know the author of ImgBurn, do you ?
Not everyone is an enemy....

[gizzin]

I completely missed answering those questions you asked. The Stuttering seemed to be related to me using directshowsource vs avisource. Directshowsource creates stuttering in the video, while avisource does not. So most likely its probably related to something on my end. Also, those post you told me to read didn't make no difference. None of the settings I set seem to retain themselves. Ie I set hc 2pass, it still just uses quenc. But if I edit every title it will use hc 2pass.

[MrC]

Originally Posted by Darksoul71

...
Searching for another burning / ISO tool just to fullfil GPL
requirements is a waste of time IMO.

Being a tool developer myself I would rather choose
- move away from sourceforge
- release my tool source under any license but not GPL

Investing time in anything else doesn´t help the tool
and hence doesn´t help the users.
...

Thanks for your words, that I fully share. I will try to find another open source license compatible to AVStoDVD as it is now, and, if I will not find anything, I will move away from SourceForge.



Bye

[MrC]

Originally Posted by gizzin

When I hit start, I get the following error from HC.

ERROR, can't open dbs file, invalid path?

Download again the gizzin build. The error should be fixed.

Originally Posted by gizzin

I completely missed answering those questions you asked. The Stuttering seemed to be related to me using directshowsource vs avisource. Directshowsource creates stuttering in the video, while avisource does not. So most likely its probably related to something on my end. Also, those post you told me to read didn't make no difference. None of the settings I set seem to retain themselves. Ie I set hc 2pass, it still just uses quenc. But if I edit every title it will use hc 2pass.

About Video encoding Profiles. Maybe you have not understand the purpose of 'Settings'/'Encoding' page. That page is used to customize AVStoDVD default functioning. AVStoDVD automatically chooses the video encoder (QuEnc or HCenc) looking at the bitrate of output DVD.
In the 'Settings'/'Encoding' you can see 3 'Setup Video Profiles'. If you select one of them, you can customize the bitrate range associated to that profile (see on the right: bitrate numbers change, and are editable). You are NOT choosing that profile forever, that is not the purpose of this page.

AVStoDVD has these default (but customizable) settings:
BitRate from 2500 to 4500 -> HCenc (mode VBR 2pass)
BitRate from 4500 to 6000 -> HCenc (mode OPV 1pass)
BitRate from 6000 to 8500 -> QuEnc (mode CBR 1pass)

In 'Edit Title'/'Video' you can override above default settings by toggling off 'Auto Video Setup' and select your favorite encoder.

Btw, everything is explained in the Help section (press F1).

Got the general concept? I understand it can be a little confusing, but I believe it is a smart way to better use QuEnc&HCenc encoding capabilities.



Bye

[gizzin]

AVStoDVD automatically chooses the video encoder (QuEnc or HCenc) looking at the bitrate of output DVD.

it makes sense now.

[gizzin]

Maybe support for aften as a ac3 encoder? Im running a test, I'll tell you how it goes in the morning.

[PatchWorKs]

Originally Posted by Sir Didymus

that open source is characteristic of a piece of code, where the author is happy of showing and sharing all of the parts of his creative work. This has nothing to do with the licensing contraints of GPL. VobBlanker and PgcEdit are brilliant examples of topmost level tools, distributed outside the GPL domain, and whose code is open and freely available.

Of course, you can also use Publi Domain or MS-Shared Source if you want.

But if you want to stay in GPL domain you MUST follow it.

And no, i don't understand why some peoples uses closed/free softwares whan alternatives ARE available, sorry.

I also perfectly know that users don't cares about the legality of certain tools but developers should, IMHO.

BTW I always prefer freedom (and legality) over quality...

[Darksoul71]

@all:
Sorry for being off-topic again but this will be my last reply....
I promise

@PatchWorKs:

Of course, you can also use Publi Domain or MS-Shared Source if you want.
But if you want to stay in GPL domain you MUST follow it.

I agree ! Hence my comment to Mr. C to change his license if required.
Public Domain as you named it might be the best solution. In regard to
the sourceforge hosting I see no problems in using other hosting /
downloading places (e.g. Megaupload, Rapidshare, etc).

And no, i don't understand why some peoples uses closed/free softwares whan alternatives ARE available, sorry.

Your point of view.
Some / a lot peoples who develop free (whatever you interpret into the word here) software will mostly
want their software to work without using payware whenever possible. For me avoiding payware simply
translates to using available free software. Free does not neccessarily mean opensource. Personally
I do not care to much about source code availibility. Sometimes it would be nice to have access to
the sources to see how something was implemented or to fix the bug but in most of the times the purpose
I use a software for is so specific (e.g. video encoding, burning, etc) that I would rarley touch the
source code.

I also perfectly know that users don't cares about the legality of certain tools but developers should, IMHO.

Define legality ! By no means the GPL is a law. IMO AVS2DVD is perfectly legaly but may not
be perfectly follow each word of the GPL. Quick solution: Do not use GPL !

BTW I always prefer freedom (and legality) over quality...

Your choice ! Not mine and at least not MrC´s choice.
Many open source tools I use have great quality but for some tasks freely available closed software
works better. Esp. in such a case as using ImgBurn Tool for ISO generation & burning.

@MrC:
This might be interesting in regard to software licenses:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

Esp. the part with "Non-copylefted free software"

[Sir Didymus]

And this will be my last post on the subject too.

Just wanted to state I am perfectly in line with the point of view already very well exposed by Darksoul71.
Also sorry for jeopardising the thread of MrC with this sort of little useful posts. I hope, and I recommend everybody to switch back on topic ASAP.

Originally Posted by PatchWorKs

Of course, you can also use Publi Domain or MS-Shared Source if you want.

of course...

But if you want to stay in GPL domain you MUST follow it.

Agreed. You have already stated this many time, in a very insistent way. PLEASE GIVE THE AUTHOR OF AVS2DVD SOME LITTLE TIME TO BREATHE AND TO FIND SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES TO GPL!!! If you feel there are violations to the legality, to the forum rules, to the GPL licence, or to whatever else you like, please signal the issue to some moderators, to the GPL legal officers (if such agents exist), open new threads, go to the police, but please stop to bore all of us with your silly repetitions of the same point.

And no, i don't understand why some peoples uses closed/free softwares whan alternatives ARE available, sorry.

If you don't understand this, that's your problem. Other users have perfecly legal and valid reasons to make their choices about the tools they prefere. THESE REASONS SHOULD BE RESPECTED!!! My point of view is that the open source alternatives for burning and encoding and (especially) authoring are not providing technically and quality wise adequate performances, if compared to ImgBurn, HCEnc, MuxMan. That's my opinion and I don't like to discuss with you the technical reasons for my preferences.

I also perfectly know that users don't cares about the legality of certain tools but developers should, IMHO.

You are going totally off topic here. Nobody want to do anything illegal!!! The problem is that you are promoting the concept that only staying within GPL you are in the domain of the legality. That's totally wrong! Many other alternative exist, all perfectly legal.

BTW I always prefer freedom (and legality) over quality...

What is freedom?
GPL?
Lol...

Me prefere legality, freedom, and quality, where freedom is the freedom of not using the GPL stiker, if the associated constraints are limiting the quality I am looking for.

[MrC]

Now it does not make any sense to change "on the fly" AVStoDVD 2.1.0 license. With next release, available within few days, I will move to Public Domain. From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html:

Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. If the source code is in the public domain, that is a special case of non-copylefted free software, which means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all.

In some cases, an executable program can be in the public domain but the source code is not available. This is not free software, because free software requires accessibility of source code. Meanwhile, most free software is not in the public domain; it is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have legally given permission for everyone to use it in freedom, using a free software license.

Public Domain license is accepted by SourceForge, so that AVStoDVD does not have to change host. And be sure I will always add (the orrible) source code of AVStoDVD.

About Quality vs GPL quarrel, Darksoul71 and SD have just expressed my own opinion, I will add nothing else.



Bye

[MrC]

Coming back to technical issues. Two questions to users:

1. Are there any solid reasons (quality, speed, compatibility, ...) to move from QuEnc to Aften as AC3 encoder?

2. Do you use AVStoDVD internal "Preview Clip" feature? Any problems? Somebody reported program crash or video/audio absence. I had some trouble with ffdshow nigthly builds, but using ffdshow stable releases, everything is ok.



Bye

[gizzin]

I would say quality, speed, compatibly are all things that aften is better than quenc at. I would say especially in terms of quality it is better.

[MrC]

Originally Posted by gizzin

I would say quality, speed, compatibly are all things that aften is better than quenc at. I would say especially in terms of quality it is better.

Really? Are all your personal opinions or you can document them with any technical explanation/link/thread?



Any chance to test minimum bitrate customization? Does it work as per your expectations?



Bye

[gizzin]

I do personally believe that aften has better quality at the same bitrate. Honestly speed I really don't pay attention because encoding ac3 really doesn't take that long now adays. There both really fast. Compatibility I would say goes to aften. I stopped using quenc because I had compatibility problems with it. These are my experiences. Take a look at the aften thread here at doom9. There's not much technical shit that I found but maybe if you look around. I don't go by that though, I use my ears. I really didn't say get rid of quenc, I really just meant give the users the option what the like better whether it be quenc or aften.

Um, as far as the gizzin build went. It completely flawlessly but is greatly undersized only at 3.25gb. I haven't burned it and played it in my standalone yet but I'm doing that right now. I'm gonna watch the whole thing, so if there's any menu, or playback issues I will edit this post otherwise all is well.

On a sidenote, Installing a proper decoder fixed my stuttering issues, so It was for sure my end.

Edit vtses 6, 11, 12 seems like they didnt encode properly but yet the muxed, but when they are played all you see is a gray screen with audio playing. this would explain the undersize because those vtes are 1/4 the size of the others. the rest of vtes are about 450megs, all the files are generally the same in length. weird probably a decoder problem? what decoder do you use mr. c

[PatchWorKs]

Last reply for me too.

I wanna suggest all to take a look at this interesting (and quite recent) article: Court: violating copyleft = copyright infringement

Last note: glad to see the license change (even if you must keep in mind that PD means "no copyright", so you can't stop ripoffs, code stole, etc...), btw you should ask tool's respective authors for bundling anyway.

That's all.

[Darksoul71]

@PatchWorKs:

btw you must ask tool's respective authors for bundling anyway.

Stop it !