Better video support all around.

[jasonb]

(This is with respect to QCD Video 1.12, although it could also apply to video playback in general. Sorry if this should have gone into plugins instead, but I thought it to be an overall feature request.)

I realise that QCD is primarily meant for music files, but with the addition of the various plugins it could easily be an all-in-one multimedia playback system. (Having just one interface for all of my media files would be great.) Here's what would make me happy. <grin>

1. Finer playback control.
a) An actual timeline scrollbar rather than just dragging left/right on the %.
b) Being able to jump to a specific hour/minute/second.
c) Specifying a playback speed. (Fast, slow motion.)

2. Screen capture.

4. Video capture. (I.e. "ripping" from a DVD.)

5. More formats like MOV and RM. (In a stable plugin, and via an installation system that's simple.)

6. I don't think that the main video plugin should be a plugin. It should be part of the application natively. (The current version is only 94k, so I don't see that as a problem.) I can see support for more esoteric video filetypes as being plugin material - but not the common ones that are already part of QCD Video 1.12.

Obviously, implementing all of this could take quite some time. I'm just throwing it out as a suggestion.

[acozz]

The problem is twofold:

1) Not many people want the video plugin to come with the install.
2) There really is no such thing as being "built-in" to QCD regarding media playback. All functions are plugins. The mp3 capabilities are delivered by a plugin, and so is the CD playback.

[Hanzo]

Well I haven't looked at the installer since I installed 4.10
If my mind doesn't fails I remember you have options to install the plugins you want. Am I right? If so, then I guess the video plugin can be easily added so it will look like a "default" plugin.

[blackspawn]

I agree with Jasonb, although I think the QCD's music-side (decoding, encoding, usability et.) should take precedence over any video enhancements.

QCD is a great music player but I'm sure is even gonna be a better media player ;)

[jasonb]

There really is no such thing as being "built-in" to QCD
I'd meant as one of the plugins available during the install routine.

I remember you have options to install the plugins you want
Unless I'm totally mistaken (and I've installed QCD a couple of times recently) QCD Video 1.12 isn't offered as part of the installer. In order to get it, you have to specifically go to the Web site and download it separately. What I'm saying is that it should be part of the installer, although perhaps unchecked by default, so that it's readily available to people who might otherwise not go looking for it.

I also agree with blackspawn. The primary focus of the application should be audio. But, given that, and after other programming cycles are done, I think there could be some good enhancements to the video portion too.

[acozz]

I don't think the video plugin is ready for joining the install, apparently it doesn't work on pre-2000 machines.

[Hanzo]

I don't think the video plugin is ready for joining the install, apparently it doesn't work on pre-2000 machines.
Interesting, never tried seting QCD with the video plugin with Win98 or 95.
I don't think I'll have that chance, anyone can confirm this. Just curious...:)

[billy]

i would hope that only officially made plugins get into the installer

who cares if it works in 9x? if people still use that shit, they seriously need to upgrade. i know people who arent as old as that software.

[Hanzo]

Not many people like to change OS, people are lazy.

[drewkeller]

Not many people like to change OS, people are lazy.
there can be economical reasons also to not upgrade, among others. but on the other hand there comes a point where you have to say you aren't supporting an old OS.

[Hanzo]

there can be economical reasons also to not upgrade, among others. but on the other hand there comes a point where you have to say you aren't supporting an old OS.
Exactly, if Microsoft isn't supporting those OS anymore, then why should I keep using them? I think an OS is like any other appliance, it has a valid lifetime. Economic reasons... a new OS might be quite an expensive investment, you are right.

[Xymantix]

there comes a point where you have to say you aren't supporting an old OS.

Yup. AFAIK, MS's policy is that they support the current version of the OS, and two back. So, the current version is XP, and the two back would be Windows ME and Windows 98 (on the non-NT side). Therefore, Windows 95 isn't being supported anymore.

The bad part about this is that MS is getting to the point where they are so agressive on new versions of OSes that they only release a new one every 3-5 years. At that rate, you're talking about them having to support an OS that's up to 15 years old, which is obviously ridiculous.

I personally would rather have incremental and more frequent OS upgrades instead of all of the @#$& hotfixes, especially since about 5-10% of them cause more harm than good due to lack of testing. Of course, now that the hardware/OS are inextricably tied via node-locked licensing, that makes upgrading the OS more tricky.

Just my $0.02.