27/01/2009, 08:16 PM
27/01/2009, 11:10 PM
feinicks Wrote:assuming you mean Server 2008 (?). CCCP is ideal for you if need a codec pack just to play your common day files and understand much the various audio/video/etc settings. For instance, you want to download an anime or a movie and just play it.
K-:ite is somewhat more advanced in that it allows a wider range of customization withing some limit. Plus, it intends user to be able to play any known format, however obscure or whatever its source. For instance, you can'y play Quicktime movie or Real movie files with CCCP.
In conclusion, it doesn't matter which you choose as both use similar technology for the basic purpose.
Yeah, Server 2008 (Windows 6, same as Vista)
CCCP is based primarily on FFDShow. K-Lite is more advanced than FFDShow!?!?
FFDShow does have VfW [Video for Windows] interfaces. ACM is kind of redundant, but yeah K-Lite has higher support for that (but ffdshow does provide ACM for popular formats like AC-3 and MP3)
Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative are bundled with the K-Lite pack, whereas CCCP doesn't have them/force you to install them and completely supports running alongside these two "Alternative" packs if the user wants that support.
CCCP is definately lightweight.
Well it's obvious that it really is between these two. As everyone's said though, it's really up to the user and your personal experience. Both these filter packs have great support and resources, so the choice is solely yours in the end =)
28/01/2009, 12:52 AM
bboy_sonik Wrote:CCCP is based primarily on FFDShow. K-Lite is more advanced than FFDShow!?!?The majority of codec packs will rely on ffdshow for decoding. ffdshow does provide VFW, but it's only libavcodec implementations (from what I know). For example, I tend to get better results with the Xvid encoder and decoder than libavcodec.
FFDShow does have VfW [Video for Windows] interfaces. ACM is kind of redundant, but yeah K-Lite has higher support for that (but ffdshow does provide ACM for popular formats like AC-3 and MP3)
28/01/2009, 01:00 AM
bboy_sonik Wrote:feinicks Wrote:assuming you mean Server 2008 (?). CCCP is ideal for you if need a codec pack just to play your common day files and understand much the various audio/video/etc settings. For instance, you want to download an anime or a movie and just play it.
K-:ite is somewhat more advanced in that it allows a wider range of customization withing some limit. Plus, it intends user to be able to play any known format, however obscure or whatever its source. For instance, you can'y play Quicktime movie or Real movie files with CCCP.
In conclusion, it doesn't matter which you choose as both use similar technology for the basic purpose.
Yeah, Server 2008 (Windows 6, same as Vista)
CCCP is based primarily on FFDShow. K-Lite is more advanced than FFDShow!?!?
FFDShow does have VfW [Video for Windows] interfaces. ACM is kind of redundant, but yeah K-Lite has higher support for that (but ffdshow does provide ACM for popular formats like AC-3 and MP3)
Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative are bundled with the K-Lite pack, whereas CCCP doesn't have them/force you to install them and completely supports running alongside these two "Alternative" packs if the user wants that support.
CCCP is definately lightweight.
Well it's obvious that it really is between these two. As everyone's said though, it's really up to the user and your personal experience. Both these filter packs have great support and resources, so the choice is solely yours in the end =)
K-lite, like I mentioned, will give you a variety of coders to choose from. Although by default, it will too, default all options to ffdshow, you can change it if you want.
By and large, however, most people are ignorant to this fact and will simply click "next".
However, I would like to say that Klite would be a more advanced version of CCCP. One which offers more features, at the cost of more resources.
28/01/2009, 01:04 AM
bboy_sonik Wrote:CCCP is based primarily on FFDShow. K-Lite is more advanced than FFDShow!?!?
No, KLite still uses FFDShow. Maybe not as heavily, but it still does.
And even if it doesn't use FFDShow, you can't really say more "advanced"... libavcodec is pretty good at most things...
IMO...
CCCP is too incomplete.
KLite is too cluttered. It has stuff which even itself doesn't use. And duplicate copies of stuff... (why the hell does it has 2 different versions of VSFilter?!?) EDIT: Well, it is true that you can choose what to install...
:(
29/01/2009, 03:00 AM
I've been swapping between K-lite and CCCP again (I always use to use K-lite at first and switched later on).
CCCP seems to do everything fine, but I's been having issues for me when watching Blu-ray movies. K-Lite doesn't have the same problems...
CCCP seems to do everything fine, but I's been having issues for me when watching Blu-ray movies. K-Lite doesn't have the same problems...
29/01/2009, 03:05 AM
Kuu Wrote:CCCP seems to do everything fine, but I's been having issues for me when watching Blu-ray movies. K-Lite doesn't have the same problems...What sort of issues? As far as I know, Blu-ray uses a VOB? container and H.264 video + PCM/AC3 audio. MPC should be able to handle the container, and ffdshow should be able to handle all the codecs.
29/01/2009, 10:19 PM
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Kuu Wrote:CCCP seems to do everything fine, but I's been having issues for me when watching Blu-ray movies. K-Lite doesn't have the same problems...What sort of issues? As far as I know, Blu-ray uses a VOB? container and H.264 video + PCM/AC3 audio. MPC should be able to handle the container, and ffdshow should be able to handle all the codecs.
No... BluRay uses the mpeg transport stream it seems. And it can carry MPEG2, H.264 and SMPTE VC-1 (some microsoft codec?) video. As for audio, it carries Dolby Digital, DTS, PCM, and lossless variants of DD and DTS.
So it's probably that CCCP can't decode stuff like VC-1, and some of the audios.
The transport stream. .M2TS
From what I know about the transport stream, it's designed primarily for boardcasting (TVs) and tapes. It is thus built to be error resilient, to cover for bad signals and corrupt data and whatever that can happen when receiving signals over the air, and when your tape is dirty.
Supposedly, from what I've head from people, transport streams have ridiculous amounts of overhead, like up to 40%, for it's error correction features and such. but then again, I've learnt to not put complete trust in random people I don't know, but even if the overhead is not something massive like 40%, it would still be much larger than for something like VOB, due to the design and purpose of the transport stream.
So don't really know why they use the transport stream format. I also would've expected it to use the program stream format (like VOB). Maybe the Bluray one is special and doesn't have craploads of overhead?
30/01/2009, 04:44 AM
Ah, TS? Interesting - only ever seen it used for digital TV.
I just guessed based on what people mentioned. I guess the TS makes it more resilient to scratches?
Still, TS streams are still easily split with many players having internal splitters for them. Somewhat doubting VC-1...
I just guessed based on what people mentioned. I guess the TS makes it more resilient to scratches?
Still, TS streams are still easily split with many players having internal splitters for them. Somewhat doubting VC-1...
30/01/2009, 06:01 AM