Talk:ffdshow

How is the configurationn screen accessed?

It is a question I have myself, and also think that it could be useful to include that information in the article: How does one access to the configuration screen (displayed in the picture) under different platforms? Apart from that, after reading the article, it's still not very clear to me how it works. I don't understand whether it replaces the individual codecs for each of the formats it supports or not. For instance, if I install ffdshow, is there any need to also install the XviD codecs on my system? If I may have both installed, how can one choose to use ffdshow or the codec to decode a video stream. Or it can't be configurated and ALL DirectShow eneabled media players will use ffdshow and ALL that don't will use the standard codecs for each format instead?

I hope someone knwos and can add this information to the article. If you do, please, leave me a message in my userpage ;) .

BTW, I have already checked in the German and Portuguese versions of the article and coudln't find what I was looking for neither there.--Pfc432 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To access the config screen, you go to to Start/Programs/ffdshow/Video decoder configuration. If you have ffdshow installed, you do not also need the standard XviD codec, but it doesn't do any harm. If both are installed, you can specify in the video decoder configuration whether ffdshow's internal codec or the XviD codec should be used for XviD video. I'll try to clarify this in the article. AxelBoldt 03:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in the article "can be accessed from Start/Programs/ffdshow" and the same in the comment above are rather dependent on the version of Windows, or rather, how the user has chosen to display the Windows Start menu. I prefer the old start menu look, but that hasn't been the default menu since Windows 2000. Also, the name "Programs" is not always "Programs" in non-English version of Windows. Perhaps a reformulation would be in place? 212.181.133.116 16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder about the statement regarding Windows Vista - the process described is merely a convenient shortcut that works in Vista and Windows 7, but does not in any way reduce the validity of the "Start Menu" links described previously. GalacticCowboy (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

MS-MPEG4 mention

Although technically a separate codec, I removed mention because frankly, it's ancient and outdated, and even if it's non-standard MPEG4, it's close enough (especially in name) that it falls under that umbrella. I don't believe it should be returned. Very few people know or care what it is anymore, compared to when DivX 3.11 was king. The only people who would use it are those targeting 98, which had no wmv built-in, which is increasingly rare. FFDshow doesn't need a list of legacy codecs it decodes; as long as full DivX support is mentioned it's understood to mean both old DivX 3 and newer DivX 4/5/6. ~ foxyshadis, 30 Nov 2006

Old webpage

So what actually happened to the original sourceforge project page? It returns a 404 now, and previous versions of the article said it was full of spam. How could a sourceforge page get like that? I mean, they own the domain and directory. If you know what happened, it would be worth adding to the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fork bias

The way the article is written places too much bias in favor of the ffdshow-tryout fork without making enough of a point that it is, in fact, a fork rather than a formal successor. The original project is still one of the most frequently downloaded packages on SourceForge so statements like "it can be considered abandoned and dead" reflect poorly on the real state of affairs. More to the point, there is as yet no source stating that Milan Cutka has handed over the administration of the project or that he has given up entirely. I think the article should take an approach similar to that of Media Player Classic -- the article itself is about the original software, but it also devotes a section to discussing forks and the changes that they have made in the absence of the original developer. This more accurately reflects an encyclopedic view of the subject IMO. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

common misconception ... means ... what?

"A common misconception is that ICL SSE/SSE2 builds will decode video better than "generic" builds. In fact, the video decoders are always compiled in gcc and are usually hand-optimized; it is the ffdshow filters that benefit from ICL"

So, what does this mean? It's presence causes confusion. (FUD) Going to the referenced site seems to indicate that SSE2 will cause no harm (advanced features not being used if not present), and that SSE2 with certain filters can have a dramatic speed improvement. (But that is the only place I could see SSE2 making a difference to the user. Maybe.)

I'm not advocating one or the other, merely pointing out that the statement's presence is ... ambivalent.

If you appended "... unless you have specific knowledge that the SSE2 build will be of benefit, use of the generic builds is recommended.", then the FUD is addressed.

Bs27975 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)