Help us keep the list up to date and submit new video software here.
All reviews for MSU Lossless Video Codec
| 9 reviews, Showing 1 to 9 reviews |
This thing SUCKS! Not lossless, doesn't let uou specify a bitrate and does 1 frame every 3 seconds!!!! I'm not waiting 30 mins for a 15 second clip!!!! Get real MSU! *thumbs down your throat*
Review by State of Mind on
Mar 23, 2005 Version: Latest
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 5/10
Functionality: 4/10
Value for money: 1/10
Overall: 1/10
I'm afraid my "VDub-alike" tool is currently more akin to a breadboard prototype than a commercial quality end-user application. I'm toying with the idea of releasing it one day... but OTOH I'm reluctant to be seen as producing a "me too" competitor for VDub, plus I expect I would be criticised for lacking expected features such as eg. video capture, audio processing etc, which people will expect if they think of it as a VDub replacement (which I don't).
Review by mpack on
Oct 25, 2004 Version: 0.2.4
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 6/10
Functionality: 5/10
Value for money: 5/10
Overall: 5/10
Thanks, that's, good feedback. I also ran into the selection not sticking bug. Are you by any chance planning to make your VDub-alike program available. Those changes you made would be very useful indeed. Thanks.
trock
trock
Review by trock on
Oct 24, 2004 Version: 1.0
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 1/10
Functionality: 1/10
Value for money: 1/10
Overall: 1/10
To be honest my comments were more a grouse about inappropriate criticism than a real vote in favour of a codec I've had only just started playing with - I came here looking for reviews which mentioned compression ratio and instead read comments about dropped frames which are easily avoided by using something else for capture (with lossless codecs there is no reason not to recompress). Your own criticisms however are about its proper use and are completely legitimate.
As for direct comparisons: that was difficult for me because I don't use Vdub at the moment - instead I'm processing video with my own experimental VDub-alike tool which I created in order to get around some VDub limitations, eg. it works with YUV as the native (internal) video format and allows me to do some other things that VDub can't, like not being limited to one frame out of a filter for every frame into it (eg. a deinterlace filter is free to output fields as two separate frames). Also my testbed doesn't handle audio, it's purely a video processor, so my output videos would be lacking the audio stream, meaning I can't just compare file size against the original Huffyuv capture....
(btw. I get no errors from this codec in my own testbed app. Maybe this is because I only feed it YUY2 frames).
However, I've just done a comparison using a 2299 frame PAL resolution (720x576) video clip, originally captured using Huffyuv with no audio. The Huffyuv version of this file was about 550meg, the MCU codec (in fully lossless compression mode) took an hour to compress this file and the result was about 515MB. There were no video filters enabled in my testbed at the time, so this would be about the best speed this codec is capable of on my 2.6GHz Celeron home PC. Needless to say this was not impressive performance in terms of either speed or compression. Output quality seemed to be lossless as claimed, so no problem there.
I then wanted to try the "highest compression ratio" preset. Unfortunately I could not get this selection to stick. If (after choosing this setting) I immediately went back into the codec's config dialog I found that it had reverted to the fully lossless setting used in my previous test. It does the same thing in VDub so this doesn't seem to be a bug in my testbed software. In Windows "Control Panel" the setting does stick, but configuring it there doesn't seem to carry over into VDub or my app. Just in case it was only a problem with the dialog and the setting /was/ actually being configured correctly I went ahead and compressed the file again anyway: again it took an hour and the results were identical to my previous test, so this looks like a bug in the codec. Until this bug is fixed I can't check the quality or performance of the "visually lossless" mode.
As for direct comparisons: that was difficult for me because I don't use Vdub at the moment - instead I'm processing video with my own experimental VDub-alike tool which I created in order to get around some VDub limitations, eg. it works with YUV as the native (internal) video format and allows me to do some other things that VDub can't, like not being limited to one frame out of a filter for every frame into it (eg. a deinterlace filter is free to output fields as two separate frames). Also my testbed doesn't handle audio, it's purely a video processor, so my output videos would be lacking the audio stream, meaning I can't just compare file size against the original Huffyuv capture....
(btw. I get no errors from this codec in my own testbed app. Maybe this is because I only feed it YUY2 frames).
However, I've just done a comparison using a 2299 frame PAL resolution (720x576) video clip, originally captured using Huffyuv with no audio. The Huffyuv version of this file was about 550meg, the MCU codec (in fully lossless compression mode) took an hour to compress this file and the result was about 515MB. There were no video filters enabled in my testbed at the time, so this would be about the best speed this codec is capable of on my 2.6GHz Celeron home PC. Needless to say this was not impressive performance in terms of either speed or compression. Output quality seemed to be lossless as claimed, so no problem there.
I then wanted to try the "highest compression ratio" preset. Unfortunately I could not get this selection to stick. If (after choosing this setting) I immediately went back into the codec's config dialog I found that it had reverted to the fully lossless setting used in my previous test. It does the same thing in VDub so this doesn't seem to be a bug in my testbed software. In Windows "Control Panel" the setting does stick, but configuring it there doesn't seem to carry over into VDub or my app. Just in case it was only a problem with the dialog and the setting /was/ actually being configured correctly I went ahead and compressed the file again anyway: again it took an hour and the results were identical to my previous test, so this looks like a bug in the codec. Until this bug is fixed I can't check the quality or performance of the "visually lossless" mode.
Review by mpack on
Oct 24, 2004 Version: 0.2.4
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 6/10
Functionality: 3/10
Value for money: 5/10
Overall: 5/10
Have you actually achieved results like that? In my tests, using the recommended highest compression setting the compression was only 14% and it took 3 hours per GB to do that and Vdub generated a bunch of error messages and failed to complete the export.
Review by trock on
Oct 23, 2004 Version: 1.0
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 1/10
Functionality: 1/10
Value for money: 1/10
Overall: 3/10
I think some of you guys may be abusing this codec for no good reason. Not every codec has to be designed for real time capture! For capture you already have the popular and excellent Huffyuv codec. The latter is a compromise between speed (so it can be used for real time capture), and performance (in terms of compression ratio). There is room for a codec that doesnt compromise: one that goes for the best compression ratio it can get, while still being lossless, and which doesn't give a damn about being slow. Usually these codecs are asymmetric - compression is much harder and slower than decompression.
How do you use it then? Easy: capture your vid using the Huffyuv codec. Say you capture a movie at full PAL resolution and it takes 40Gigs of disk space. Now you run it through VDub using the MSU codec for output: now your movie takes 20Gigs of space, or less. Isn't that worth having?
Sure, it would be nice if they made it faster so you could use it for capture, but that doesn't mean it can't be used now.
How do you use it then? Easy: capture your vid using the Huffyuv codec. Say you capture a movie at full PAL resolution and it takes 40Gigs of disk space. Now you run it through VDub using the MSU codec for output: now your movie takes 20Gigs of space, or less. Isn't that worth having?
Sure, it would be nice if they made it faster so you could use it for capture, but that doesn't mean it can't be used now.
Review by mpack on
Oct 23, 2004 Version: 0.2.4
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 8/10
Functionality: 8/10
Value for money: 8/10
Overall: 8/10
Same here, 300 frames dropped in 10 seconds on a P4 2.4 with 1GB no matter what settings I used. None of my (many) other codecs drop frames.
Review by trock on
Oct 5, 2004 Version: Version 1
OS: WinXP Ease of use: 8/10
Functionality: 1/10
Value for money: 5/10
Overall: 2/10
This is a very promising codec, that it might end to something really great!
With my current PC (Athlon XP 2600) I can't really use it for capturing. It drop frames and acts like how Huffyuv acts on a Pentium 2 @ 233Mhz...
Of course this is a very early beta of the codec. The next version it's going to be 5 - 10 times faster (a statement from the official homepage).
What is great in this codec, is that It has a built-in Temporal denoising and Spatial denosing feuture. What that means? It means that (in theory ) you can capture and at the same time filter what you capture.
My first tests show me results like the dynamic noise reduction ( value at 6 ) and 2D cleaner optimised ( Values 8 - 1 - 1) Not bad at all!
Download this version for testing. Don't expect much right now, but I feel it's gonna be great freeware alternative in the close future. At least something to watch and look for!
With my current PC (Athlon XP 2600) I can't really use it for capturing. It drop frames and acts like how Huffyuv acts on a Pentium 2 @ 233Mhz...
Of course this is a very early beta of the codec. The next version it's going to be 5 - 10 times faster (a statement from the official homepage).
What is great in this codec, is that It has a built-in Temporal denoising and Spatial denosing feuture. What that means? It means that (in theory ) you can capture and at the same time filter what you capture.
My first tests show me results like the dynamic noise reduction ( value at 6 ) and 2D cleaner optimised ( Values 8 - 1 - 1) Not bad at all!
Download this version for testing. Don't expect much right now, but I feel it's gonna be great freeware alternative in the close future. At least something to watch and look for!
Review by SatStorm on
Oct 5, 2004 Version: 0.2.4
OS: Win2K Ease of use: 10/10
Functionality: 10/10
Value for money: 10/10
Overall: 10/10
do not work with virtualdud 1510
do not work with my ATI MMC 9.1
each time, a lot of dropped frames (about 70%)
even with a ridiculous (for me) capture resolution (320*240)
with the four mode of compression avaliable in the prog.
very strange.....
i'a am using a lot of codecs in video capture (divx xvid mpeg2 HuffYUV...)and i can capture at max resolution 720*576 without any pbs.
do not work with my ATI MMC 9.1
each time, a lot of dropped frames (about 70%)
even with a ridiculous (for me) capture resolution (320*240)
with the four mode of compression avaliable in the prog.
very strange.....
i'a am using a lot of codecs in video capture (divx xvid mpeg2 HuffYUV...)and i can capture at max resolution 720*576 without any pbs.
Review by lolive on
Oct 5, 2004 Version: 2.04
OS: MacOS9 Ease of use: 7/10
Functionality: 5/10
Value for money: 1/10
Overall: 1/10
| 9 reviews, Showing 1 to 9 reviews |