Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Harout]

Hi,

first of all thank you for this awesome codec pack !

I just wanted to know what's the progress with the MKV thumbnails for Windows 7 ?

To have those thumbnails I have to install Divx Codec and I don't like to have different codec / decoder installed. It doesn't create conflicts but it's not "clean"
It works but it's still buggy, sometimes the thumbnail doesn't show and I have to delete the file with Unlocker..

Thanks in advance.

[Lenmaer]

Google for "icaros thumbnail provider" and you'll get a better one.
Remove the divx crap before.

Also those MKVs in your screenshot aren't buggy, they're either Hi10P MKVs and/or have their headers stripped, both of course aren't supported by the DivX thumbnail preview.

[Harout]

Ok thanks I have removed divx and installed "icaros thumbnail provider"

But those 2 MKVs and 1 movie I had issues before still aren't working.

What do you mean by headers stripped ?

Thanks.

[Lenmaer]

You need to have lavsplitter installed (x86 or x64) depending on your windows version and correctly configured.
But you should find a tutorial on the official site or forum.

[Harout]

I have to install Icaros AND Lav Splitter ?

Do I have to install Lav Audio and Video too ?

Thanks

[Lenmaer]

Well, that's how I did with 7 x64.

Install CCCP
Install LavFilter Splitter x64
Install LavFilter Video x64

LavFilter setting: select matroska, mp4 and ogg

Win7 DSFilter Tweaker: select LAV Video in 64bit (do nothing in 32bit) as prefered h.264 decoder

Icaros properties: add ".flv;.mp4" as optional then activate

That's how it worked for me.


If you have a 32 bit OS, then you can skip installing lavfilter x64 as CCCP already has the 32 bit built in. But you'll have to enable LAV Video in 32bit instead with Win7 DSFilter Tweaker.

[Harout]

OMG thank you very much it's working !!!

Wow I was looking for a solution for this problem for a long time !!
Now the 10bit are working and even the movie that I was having a problem has now a thumbnail !

The only thing is that it's kinda a long process and you need to install 4 applications so it can work.

[Lenmaer]

Well yes, that's depending on your hardware. It's rather fast for me.

[xinyingho]

Well, if some ppl has the same issue and find the process to install Icaros too complex, you can try my shell extension Media Preview @http://www.babelsoft.net/products.htm

Contrary to Icaros that uses the .Net framework, it's developped using pure C++, so it should be more stable, even more if you're using a lot of legacy .Net apps (in this case, you're sure to get a crash with Icaros). It comes with an automatic installer that do the job for you. You just have to select the file formats you want it to manage.

[JEEB]

I do like the idea of removing DirectShow splitting/decoding from the equation, but I'll really have to check how exactly you have implemented some stuff . Also, since I didn't find any links towards any source code releases for your binaries, while you are using FFmpeg (which uses licenses that make you do at least some kind of source code releases), I think you might want to go through the usual steps of making sure no-one herps a derp at you.

FFmpeg is LGPL/GPL depending on how you configure it (some parts are GPL-only). You seemingly use nevcairiel's repository for it (the one LAV Filters use), so you should check if his additional patches make anything become GPL in case you are compiling it with a seemingly LGPL set-up. The LAV Filters package itself is GPL, so there could always be a possibility.

If your FFmpeg is configured to be GPL:
- The source code for the whole thing has to be released. FFmpeg as well as your stuff.
If your FFmpeg is configured to be LGPL:
- You seem to be using dynamic linking, so releasing the exact source code used for compiling FFmpeg is needed.
- (if you had been using static linking you would also have to release the object files required for the final linking as well as the FFmpeg source code)

You can just package related source code into a zip/7z archive and upload it to a folder on your web server, and add a link to it at the part where you say "Media Preview is powered by Libavcodec, the leading audio/video codec library.", for example "Media Preview is powered by Libavcodec, the leading audio/video codec library. Source code releases as marked under the (L)GPL license are available here."

To be honest I'd prefer for stuff like this to be open source, but it's your choice (just remember to follow the licenses of the libraries you use, mainly FFmpeg's at the moment, as zlib and libpng seem to have much more lax licenses).

Edit:
Found from the libavcodec library:

--extra-cflags='-I../dxva2 -mmmx -msse -mfpmath=sse' --enable-shared --enable-gpl --enable-version3 --enable-w32threads --enable-runtime-cpudetect --enable-asm --enable-zlib --enable-swscale --disable-avfilter --disable-filters --disable-protocols --enable-protocol=file --disable-muxers --disable-hwaccels --enable-hwaccel=h264_dxva2 --enable-hwaccel=vc1_dxva2 --enable-hwaccel=wmv3_dxva2 --enable-hwaccel=mpeg2_dxva2 --disable-swresample --disable-postproc --disable-static --disable-altivec --disable-encoders --disable-debug --disable-ffplay --disable-ffserver --disable-ffmpeg --disable-ffprobe --disable-devices --disable-avdevice --disable-bsfs --arch=x86 --cpu=i686 --target-os=mingw32 --build-suffix=-mp
libavcodec license: GPL version 3 or later

Sorry, but you seem to have done what many people end up doing when dealing with (L)GPL software. I thus hereby request the full source code for 'Media Preview v1.1.1.86 (04/10/2012)' as mentioned under the GPL license. If you have done GPL compiles before this, I strongly recommend that you release sources for those releases as well.

(Note that future releases can be closed source [if you properly use LGPL libraries and release the used FFmpeg source code], and you don't have to support the source code you released, it just has to be exactly the stuff you used for those binaries that were released under the GPL)

[barca]

You don't need to distribute source for the whole package, just for the modules that contain GPL code, thus only the FFmpeg DLLs. Each DLL is a separate entity or 'work'. If you haven't modified anything, then pointing to the LAV repository would be ok.

But of course making the rest open source would be cool.

[JEEB]

You don't need to distribute source for the whole package, just for the modules that contain GPL code, thus only the FFmpeg DLLs. Each DLL is a separate entity or 'work'. If you haven't modified anything, then pointing to the LAV repository would be ok.

But of course making the rest open source would be cool.

Actually, when linking to a GPL component in any way, you have to + he has to be including libavcodec.h and libavformat.h at the very least, which have fallen under the GPL due to his configuration. With LGPL and dynamic linking you would be correct and he would've not had to (LGPL and static linking = object files for the other parts and source code for LGPL'd parts, as I already mentioned).

GPL = if you include even a bit of GPL'd code, you end up GPL'd. A virus of sorts, if you want to take it that way

Edit:
Regarding the FFmpeg source code, he would have to point at the exact revision he used. If this was a repository that was used in a 'stable' manner this would be easier, but nev's FFmpeg repository tends to get git rebase'd from time to time which will kill off hashes

Thus the only way to link to that repository in a somewhat stable'ish way would be to link to a tag, as those seem to keep their contents even after a rebase. If one didn't use a tagged piece of source, you would have to release the source in some other way (a github clone of the repository with a branch/annotated tag for every release being a not-so-bad idea).

Edit2:
Just for the record, I am only doing this because people just don't know what the GPL says, which is what I very much think happened here. People have to learn to know the licenses for the software they use, and if that piece of software gives you a way to set its license (FFmpeg is LGPL by default, and GPL'd parts can be enabled separately to make the whole package GPL), they should clearly check what they are getting into.

Also, funny enough, there are people who agree with barca on the legal level, depending on the legislation and some other factors. They acknowledge that the GPL says and means what there is, but that legally with dynamic linking it cannot hold depending on circumstances (such as whether or not the linked library or libraries were distributed as well, and so on and so on) and legislation. Of course, people who go this way usually don't become friends with the developers who chose GPL to be their license.

[barca]

The header files are LGPL.

[JEEB]

The header files are LGPL.

He passed --enable-gpl as well as --enable-version3 when compiling the library, thus selecting the license for the whole of FFmpeg he is using to be GPLv3 (see here).

...not to mention that he actually distributes those GPL binaries with his piece of software. He might or might not have a case depending on the legislation in case he wasn't distributing any libraries, or if the libraries he was distributing were under the LGPL license.

(Although you could just ask nevcairiel, or the FFmpeg developers about how to read the license )

[Lord]

Also, funny enough, there are people who agree with barca on the legal level, depending on the legislation and some other factors. They acknowledge that the GPL says and means what there is, but that legally with dynamic linking it cannot hold depending on circumstances (such as whether or not the linked library or libraries were distributed as well, and so on and so on) and legislation.

If you do not distribute them together, you cannot be blamed for someone else putting it together with components that claim to have an "incompatible" license. There is no standard way you could check the license of the modules you're loading, nor any obligation to even try to do so.
Additionally you only need to comply for distribution, so the users can do whatever they want on their own systems with them.

Of course, people who go this way usually don't become friends with the developers who chose GPL to be their license.

Most "developers who chose GPL" had just no idea what they were doing.