Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 792990" data-attributes="member: 82144">In that post I'm talking about the DXVA version:Later it seems I was able to reproduce a problem with the non-DXVA version only with quite specific settings...I can only say that I honestly don't experience problems using FFDShow non-DXVA in &quot;normal&quot; (for me) conditions. As I said, I *do* know of the issues with FFDShow DXVA + h.264 + switching between channels with different resolutions - this is where Tony's patch is required. However I'm not recommending the DXVA version here; I'm recommending the non-DXVA version. I could be wrong but I think non-DXVA codecs are generally more resilient to stream corruption...mm<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 792990, member: 82144"] In that post I'm talking about the DXVA version: Later it seems I was able to reproduce a problem with the non-DXVA version only with quite specific settings... I can only say that I honestly don't experience problems using FFDShow non-DXVA in "normal" (for me) conditions. As I said, I *do* know of the issues with FFDShow DXVA + h.264 + switching between channels with different resolutions - this is where Tony's patch is required. However I'm not recommending the DXVA version here; I'm recommending the non-DXVA version. I could be wrong but I think non-DXVA codecs are generally more resilient to stream corruption... mm :) [/QUOTE]

Verification