Help us keep the list up to date and submit new video software here.
All reviews for Alparysoft Lossless Video Codec
| 11 reviews, Showing 1 to 11 reviews |
bit of a pain really as thier site is down and you can't register to remove logo
pity as i had archived some material in this format and it looked great but now i'm stuck with this logo
pity as i had archived some material in this format and it looked great but now i'm stuck with this logo
Review by odubrus on
Jan 4, 2009 Version: 2.0
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 10/10
Functionality: 10/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 1/10
This tool is obviously still in developement but it is promising. The main problem is it is way too taxing on the CPU. If your CPU doesn't support SSE don't even bother with it. On my Athlon XP 2600 Barton, I got the Visually Lossless setting with a compression of 4 to work and that was the only one. The others were too CPU intensive.
A setting of 4 put it at around 75%-95% CPU in virtualdub with no lost frames while recording from analog 720x480@29.97fps NTSC YUY2. This was with preview disabled in Virtualdub and nothing else running on my PC. With Huffyuv 2.1.1, I was getting around 500MB/min. With that setting I was getting 100MB/min with Alparysoft and I think it looks great.
Bottom Line: Lossless mode is junk... If you like the quality of Visually Lossless mode and your CPU can handle it, go with it. Hopefully they'll optimize the code a lot more. It needs it.
A setting of 4 put it at around 75%-95% CPU in virtualdub with no lost frames while recording from analog 720x480@29.97fps NTSC YUY2. This was with preview disabled in Virtualdub and nothing else running on my PC. With Huffyuv 2.1.1, I was getting around 500MB/min. With that setting I was getting 100MB/min with Alparysoft and I think it looks great.
Bottom Line: Lossless mode is junk... If you like the quality of Visually Lossless mode and your CPU can handle it, go with it. Hopefully they'll optimize the code a lot more. It needs it.
Review by Brobbard on
Jan 1, 2006 Version: 2.0 alpha build 957.040607
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 5/10
Functionality: 9/10
Value for money: 5/10
Overall: 6/10
I use it in lossy mode to capture video at 720x576@25fps PAL with VirtualDub.
It has similar CPU load than Xvid, the other I sometimes use.
However editing the captured video is easier with this one than with Xvid.
Visual quality looks very good.
It has similar CPU load than Xvid, the other I sometimes use.
However editing the captured video is easier with this one than with Xvid.
Visual quality looks very good.
Review by uxbridge on
Dec 15, 2004 Version: 2.0
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 7/10
Functionality: 7/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 8/10
Their website claims compression ratios of 2-5 in the lossless mode, but the result of my (limited) tests so far show that it does worse than Huffyuv, not better.
My test video was a PAL VHS capture (YUY2, 720x576, 25fps, interlaced), which included typical VHS noise (not excessive). The clip was about 2000 frames.
I tried the default lossless mode and it /doubled/ the file size! This was probably due to VDub feeding it RGB frames, so next I enabled the "Convert to YV12" option and while that improved matters a lot, it still left the compression ratio a few percent worse than Huffyuv. With YV12 it should be doing better than Huffyuv if only because YV12 takes less space to begin with than YUY2.
I also tried enabling the "Interlaced source" option which claims to compress each field separately. That made little difference to the compression (still worse than Huffyuv), but did produce a video which was corrupted on playback both in media player and VDub. The picture was still recognisable, but something awful had happend to the interlacing.
It is possible that the problem was the noise. Perhaps the AlparySoft algorithm would do better than Huffyuv on a filtered video, but really I expect that if it can't keep up with Huffyuv on speed, then it should at least match Huffyuv on compression regardless of the circumstances.
On speed, in VDub this codec managed a frame rate on the above video of around 15fps on my 2.6GHz Celeron home PC.
This codec also crashes when I attempt to use it in my homebrew video testbed app. This could easily be a bug of mine, but I've had no problems with other codecs. It does however work fine in VDub so I'll reserve judgement on this issue.
In its own terms this codec is a credible performer, but I see no reason (so far) to prefer it over Huffyuv.
My test video was a PAL VHS capture (YUY2, 720x576, 25fps, interlaced), which included typical VHS noise (not excessive). The clip was about 2000 frames.
I tried the default lossless mode and it /doubled/ the file size! This was probably due to VDub feeding it RGB frames, so next I enabled the "Convert to YV12" option and while that improved matters a lot, it still left the compression ratio a few percent worse than Huffyuv. With YV12 it should be doing better than Huffyuv if only because YV12 takes less space to begin with than YUY2.
I also tried enabling the "Interlaced source" option which claims to compress each field separately. That made little difference to the compression (still worse than Huffyuv), but did produce a video which was corrupted on playback both in media player and VDub. The picture was still recognisable, but something awful had happend to the interlacing.
It is possible that the problem was the noise. Perhaps the AlparySoft algorithm would do better than Huffyuv on a filtered video, but really I expect that if it can't keep up with Huffyuv on speed, then it should at least match Huffyuv on compression regardless of the circumstances.
On speed, in VDub this codec managed a frame rate on the above video of around 15fps on my 2.6GHz Celeron home PC.
This codec also crashes when I attempt to use it in my homebrew video testbed app. This could easily be a bug of mine, but I've had no problems with other codecs. It does however work fine in VDub so I'll reserve judgement on this issue.
In its own terms this codec is a credible performer, but I see no reason (so far) to prefer it over Huffyuv.
Review by mpack on
Nov 14, 2004 Version: 2.0
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 8/10
Functionality: 7/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 7/10
This codec is not bad but it is much slower than the Huffyuv 2.1.1 codec and even though it claims to be lossless I did notice a very slight loss in quality.
I would recommend Huffyuv 2.1.1 over this codec anyday!
I would recommend Huffyuv 2.1.1 over this codec anyday!
Review by laspis59 on
Apr 26, 2004 Version: 1.6
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 9/10
Functionality: 5/10
Value for money: 5/10
Overall: 6/10
I confirm this codec is very slow.
The huffyuw works sperfectly on a PII 300 Mhz but this one is not working. It's seems to be optimized for these "annoying" sse instructions (like a big amount of avisynth plugins :(((( )
The huffyuw works sperfectly on a PII 300 Mhz but this one is not working. It's seems to be optimized for these "annoying" sse instructions (like a big amount of avisynth plugins :(((( )
Review by cd090580 on
Feb 7, 2004 Version: 0.1
OS: Win2K Ease of use: 7/10
Functionality: 1/10
Value for money: 1/10
Overall: 3/10
This codec is system intensive. I have a slower system, an Athlon 700mhz 640mb ram ati aiw card and I normally capture with virtualdub. I tried to use this codec but my system was not fast enough. The cpu ran at 100% and I had hundreds of dropped frames per minute. In comparison I can capture with picvideo mjpeg at 19 quality at the rate of 30% cpu usage and maybe 10 dropped frames per hour. I know this is not a fair comparison in that the mjpeg is lossy, but with the high dropped frames I cannot get usable quality. Maybe it works better on the newer faster systems, but definetly not on mine.
Review by Todd7 on
Feb 6, 2004 Version: 1.0.763.040115
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 8/10
Functionality: 4/10
Value for money: 5/10
Overall: 5/10
download here (right click and save as)
http://www.alparysoft.com/cgi-bin/myfil ... 040115.exe
http://www.alparysoft.com/cgi-bin/myfil ... 040115.exe
Review by BJ_M on
Feb 4, 2004 Version: na
OS: Other Ease of use: 8/10
Functionality: 8/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 8/10
I'm going to try this codec with my TV card to compare with HuffYuv
Review by cd090580 on
Feb 4, 2004 Version: 1.5
OS: Win2K Ease of use: 7/10
Functionality: 8/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 8/10
Its hard to find, but you can download it from the same website, just choose the downloads section from the top menu and you will find the file at the top of that page.
The link from the products page is apparently out.
I've tried it with virtualdub, looks very promising!
The link from the products page is apparently out.
I've tried it with virtualdub, looks very promising!
Review by REDMAN66 on
Feb 3, 2004 Version: Beta
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 5/10
Functionality: 5/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 8/10
This codec looks promising....if they'd let you download it.
Review by equinox137 on
Feb 3, 2004 Version: v1.5 beat
OS: Win2K Ease of use: 10/10
Functionality: 1/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 1/10
| 11 reviews, Showing 1 to 11 reviews |