Simple x264/x265 Launcher v3.02 (2022-06-16)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

For anybody getting this error with latest release, please try the new "hotfix" build below:



x264_launcher.2017-01-14.exe

[GMJCZP]

I have a question: Is a good idea for Bluray ripping use makemkv and later use Simplex264 for definitive coding (video only, of course)?
The quality of image is still good?

[kypec]

Originally Posted by GMJCZP

The quality of image is still good?

Quality of video will depend on the bitrate and settings you setup for x264 encoder. I personally usually encode with preset=veryslow, CRF=20 and appropriate tuning applied (Film, Animation...)

[BakaProxy]

Originally Posted by kypec

Quality of video will depend on the bitrate and settings you setup for x264 encoder. I personally usually encode with preset=veryslow, CRF=20 and appropriate tuning applied (Film, Animation...)

I personally like to use qp=21,preset=placebo, deblock=9:-9,aq-strength 0.69 for maximum quality, I swear you you won't notice the difference except for some small dots here and there. 👌👌👌

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A500FU met Tapatalk

[GMJCZP]

In short: Is usable makemkv for video input for simplex264?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Quality-wise, the Simple x264 Launcher is as good (or bad) as any other x264 front-end. But yes, x264 should be able to reduce the bitrate of a BluRay source quite a bit without much quality loss.

As far as MKV input is concerned, x264 can read MKV files directly, thanks to built-in FFmpegSource support. x265 is still lacking a feature like that, but of course you can always frame-serve your MKV files via Avisynth or VapurSynth...

[GMJCZP]

Thanks, I was worried for the quality input of makemkv video, not for the performance of your program. In short Makemkv and Simplex264 are a good combo for ripping!

[kypec]

Originally Posted by GMJCZP

Thanks, I was worried for the quality input of makemkv video, not for the performance of your program.

Seems like you've been missing one important point to know:
MakeMKV is a ripping tool, not encoder which means that the visual quality of output MKV file is exactly the same as that of original BD stream, the data are just repacked in different container = mkv (Matroska) instead of ts (MPEG transport stream).

[GMJCZP]

Indeed, thanks. Makemkv's output is lossless. Now I know.

[r0lZ]

In toolset/common, netc.exe is detected as a virus by many antivirus programs (VirusTotal score: 10/56). It's probably a false positive, but who know? What is its usage, and can we safely add it to the white list of our antivirus?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

In toolset/common, netc.exe is detected as a virus by many antivirus programs (VirusTotal score: 10/56). It's probably a false positive, but who know? What is its usage, and can we safely add it to the white list of our antivirus?

Netcat (aka "nc") is a standard networking tool. Pretty much every Unix/Linux-based OS comes with this standard tool included. Windows doesn't, so a Windows port of Netcat is included with my software.

It's used by my auto-update feature, for fast connectivity tests. It only runs when you let auto-updater check for new updates. Don't worry: Netcat is a 100% legitimate. All you have to do is getting rid of buggy "anti-virus" software.

Recommended reading:
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/01/...re-except.html

[r0lZ]

OK, thanks. But note that it's not a single antivirus that is "buggy". As I wrote, 10 different antivirus consider the exe as dangerous, and it's too much to suspect a simple false positive. However, most of them flag it simply as suspect (or Potentially Unwanted Application) rather than as a real virus, probably because the exe can be used to communicate private information over the internet. Of course, I don't suspect your program to use it that way, but it remains that the exe might really be potentially dangerous if it is used by a malicious app, and that it will certainly be quarantined by the anti-virus of many users. Some peoples may be scared and refuse to use your program any more. Perhaps you should consider to use another solution, or integrate the version check within the program itself rather than using an external exe?

Anyway, on my side, I'll simply add it to the white list of my antivirus.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by r0lZ

OK, thanks. But note that it's not a single antivirus that is "buggy". As I wrote, 10 different antivirus consider the exe as dangerous, and it's too much to suspect a simple false positive. However, most of them flag it simply as suspect (or Potentially Unwanted Application) rather than as a real virus, probably because the exe can be used to communicate private information over the internet.

There is a very fundamental difference between the following types of "detections":

1. Known malware, i.e. a specific well-known software that was strictly written to cause harm and that has been identified undoubtedly
2. Something that looks somewhat similar to a known malware, i.e. heuristic detection
3. Software that is 100% legitimate and that is used for 100% legitimate purposes most of the time, but may also be used for causing harm

The big problem with so-called "anti-virus" software is that they do not clearly distinguish these cases!

In case (1) the "anti-virus" software should trigger an alert, yes. In case (2) the "anti-virus" software may still show a warning to the user, but it must be made very clear (not hidden somewhere in the details!) that such heuristic detections are only a very vague assumption and, most likely, the file is 100% legitimate. And, in case (3), the "anti-virus" software should not show anything to the user, with default settings. That's because, if you think about it, pretty much any software belongs into that category! Show me one (non-trivial) legitimate software that couldn't be used to cause harm, in one way or another, if you really want to. It doesn't exist. So, what software they call "potentially dangerous", or not, is a completely arbitrary decision... Microsoft Word, for example, is by far more "potentially dangerous" than NC will every be - c.f. macro virus. But, of course, they wouldn't dare to block Microsoft Word, because Microsoft has an army of lawyers...

(Tomorrow they'll try to tell you that x264 itself is "dangerous" program that needs to be blocked, because terrorists may use it to encode their propaganda videos!)

Originally Posted by r0lZ

Of course, I don't suspect your program to use it that way, but it remains that the exe might really be potentially dangerous if it is used by a malicious app, and that it will certainly be quarantined by the anti-virus of many users. Some peoples may be scared and refuse to use your program any more. Perhaps you should consider to use another solution, or integrate the version check within the program itself rather than using an external exe?

At the point where a 100% legitimate application needs to be changed to workaround the shortcomings of the so-called "anti-virus" software (that is supposed to protect us from malware) things are going seriously wrong! So, nope. It's not going to happen that I change a single line of code in order to workaround "buggy" anti-virus software. It would be a pointless effort anyway, because there's like a zillion of "anti-virus" products out there and you can't hack around all of them.

(BTW: There is an important philosophy in software designed that says: Don't stuff too many features into a single program; write programs that do one thing, and do it properly; write programs that cooperate! So, if there already exists a well-established tool that does exactly what you need - as is the case here - it is always much preferable to just call that tool, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel)

[r0lZ]

I agree, especially on the difficulty to identify clearly if an exe is a real virus or just a PUA. And it's the major problem with VirusTotal, since when an antivirus doesn't give the green light, VirusTotal counts it as positive, even if it's only a PUA. But the fact remains that a score of 10/56 is scaring for many users, and that may have a bad effect on the reputation of your program. It's why I suggested to integrate the version check within the main exe, but of course it's not mandatory. I hope that your program will not be affected.

Anyway, thanks for your long reply.

[AbeSimpson]

Just recently my x264 logs are now showing timestamps when I save them. I haven't had this before and don't remember turning them on. How can I shut them off?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by AbeSimpson

Just recently my x264 logs are now showing timestamps when I save them. I haven't had this before and don't remember turning them on. How can I shut them off?

Yes, timestamps are now saved in the logfile for each line. This has been implemented a while ago. It is actually very common that entries in an application log are timestamped, so that you can later trace back what happened when.

There currently is no option to turn it off. And I'm not sure I want (yet another) option for this. If you don't care about the timestamps, you can just ignore them, right?

(it seems you are the first person to even notice ^^)

[AbeSimpson]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

Yes, timestamps are now saved in the logfile for each line. This has been implemented a while ago. It is actually very common that entries in an application log are timestamped, so that you can later trace back what happened when.

There currently is no option to turn it off. And I'm not sure I want (yet another) option for this. If you don't care about the timestamps, you can just ignore them, right?

(it seems you are the first person to even notice ^^)

I hadn't done any encoding for a while so I guess they must have shown up since my last one. Thanks for clearing that up.

[rus929]

Gud day LoRd_MuldeR:

First of all, I would like to thank you for this wonderful software that you've shared to us.

Today, I am glad to share my experience that I've discovered by using this software in all of my video encodes.

For the past days, I am using Simple x264/x265 Launcher with Avisynth script in resizing my videos (from 1080p to 720p) using Avisynth's spline64 resizer. I am not into lanczos cause for me it creates more banding on my encodes. By the way my encode settings are 2pass @1500kbps and I am using the medium preset with the following changes: level 4.1, deblock -1:-1, ref=4, subme=8, umh, merange=64, rc-lookahead=96, b-adapt=2 and no p-fast skip. The encodes are good (if not best), but I think it is a little smooth because I think of the spline method.

What I've discovered lately is that, when I put directly the video into the job without using Avisynth script and add a --video-filter resize:1280,XXX as additional command, the resulting encode was superb using the same settings as above. The encode is a little crispier but not so much of having banding effects created. Also, I observe that it saves about an hour of time in first-pass and also save more minutes for the second-pass (since only the x264 executable is only running and no Avs2yuv is running).

Now, what I am wondering is that, is there any possibility that x264 can add an "add-border" function in its video filters cause as of this moment I can add only borders to my encodes using Avisynth's add border command. If you are wondering why, re-encoding videos (i.e. cropped movies) into full 1920x1080p in just single or dual-layer dvd discs and mux them as AVCHD format is beautiful to watch since blu-ray players will play the video in full-1080p/24-frames signal unlike the cropped videos which is converted to 60-frames.

More power and thanks once again.

[sneaker_ger]

The vanilla x264 does not have a border adding filter and I haven't seen any other builds with such filter. By default it uses bicubic resizing. Have you tried AviSynth's BicubicResize() filter for comparison?

[rus929]

Originally Posted by sneaker_ger

The vanilla x264 does not have a border adding filter and I haven't seen any other builds with such filter. By default it uses bicubic resizing. Have you tried AviSynth's BicubicResize() filter for comparison?

Have not tried Avisynth's bicubic. I will try, but my concern now is the time factor.

About the add-border, of my knowledge, there is one application - uncropmkv, but this is an old tool, and i think it uses avisynths too. If x264 can do this internally I think we can save time to encode videos.

I am wondering if LorR_MuldeR can channel this concern to the developers of x264 since he has authority in using their binaries.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.