For The Record...
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
You don't like DirectShow, do you? Simon C++: Only friends can see your private parts. Sonork ID 100.10024
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: ) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! Have you submitted your "wish list" to Microsoft? They do listen :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Sounds like a prime money-making opportunity to me. You can contract yourself out as the True Direct Show Guru. Write books. Do the lecture circuit. Star in a show opposite Oprha. The mind boggles... I take it you will at least grace us, the lesser unwashed masses, the joy of a complete article on how to use this beast? Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Have you moved on to 3-D gaming or something? Is DirectShow good for anything besides that? (I've never even tried to use it, so it is a mystery to me) "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
-
Sounds like a prime money-making opportunity to me. You can contract yourself out as the True Direct Show Guru. Write books. Do the lecture circuit. Star in a show opposite Oprha. The mind boggles... I take it you will at least grace us, the lesser unwashed masses, the joy of a complete article on how to use this beast? Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Todd C. Wilson wrote: Sounds like a prime money-making opportunity to me. You can contract yourself out as the True Direct Show Guru. Write books. Do the lecture circuit. Star in a show opposite Oprha. The mind boggles... ..just the way how COM gurus made (and are still making) tons of cash. // Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++ http://www.capitolsoft.com
-
Have you moved on to 3-D gaming or something? Is DirectShow good for anything besides that? (I've never even tried to use it, so it is a mystery to me) "Thank you, thank you very much" Elvis.
Nope, I'm simply trying to write a DLL that our program can use to capture a single frame from a live video stream. That paart is actually done. I',m currently trying to find a way to give the user a small amount of control over *how* the frame is captured. I have three cameras to test with - an I-Bot B&W firewire webcam ($39), a Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000 USB web cam ($99), and a Sony TRV-730 HandyCam ($900) that uses firewire. All three cameras are currently connected to my system, and I can even select which one to use for video capture. However, things get real nasty when you try to allow customization. Both web cams report a minimum AND maximum capture resolution of 320x240. The Sony reports a min/max of *ZERO*. This is a perfect example of drivers not being written in a complete fashion. Fuurther, each camera manufacturer has its own idea about what to allow the user to change. The Sony allows nothing to be changed through the standard property sheets, while both the web cams allow you to select a different resolution. Further, the Sony and the IBot seem to be happy with the standard DirectShow property page (remember though that the Sony doesn't allow you to change resotlution thru this dialog), but the Logitech has a much larger dialog, and allows you to change a number of different settings besides resolution. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THIS, MUCH LESS COMMUNICATE THE POSSIBLE RANGE OF DIFFERENCES TO THE USER!!!??? DirectBlow - er - DirectShow is the single largest crock of SHIT to ooze out of Redmond Since Windows itself. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Sounds like a prime money-making opportunity to me. You can contract yourself out as the True Direct Show Guru. Write books. Do the lecture circuit. Star in a show opposite Oprha. The mind boggles... I take it you will at least grace us, the lesser unwashed masses, the joy of a complete article on how to use this beast? Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Todd C. Wilson wrote: Sounds like a prime money-making opportunity to me. You can contract yourself out as the True Direct Show Guru. Write books. Do the lecture circuit. Star in a show opposite Oprha. The mind boggles... I have no desire to be a DirectBlow guru. Todd C. Wilson wrote: I take it you will at least grace us, the lesser unwashed masses, the joy of a complete article on how to use this beast? I wouldn't even wish this crap on Roger Smith. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Nope, I'm simply trying to write a DLL that our program can use to capture a single frame from a live video stream. That paart is actually done. I',m currently trying to find a way to give the user a small amount of control over *how* the frame is captured. I have three cameras to test with - an I-Bot B&W firewire webcam ($39), a Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000 USB web cam ($99), and a Sony TRV-730 HandyCam ($900) that uses firewire. All three cameras are currently connected to my system, and I can even select which one to use for video capture. However, things get real nasty when you try to allow customization. Both web cams report a minimum AND maximum capture resolution of 320x240. The Sony reports a min/max of *ZERO*. This is a perfect example of drivers not being written in a complete fashion. Fuurther, each camera manufacturer has its own idea about what to allow the user to change. The Sony allows nothing to be changed through the standard property sheets, while both the web cams allow you to select a different resolution. Further, the Sony and the IBot seem to be happy with the standard DirectShow property page (remember though that the Sony doesn't allow you to change resotlution thru this dialog), but the Logitech has a much larger dialog, and allows you to change a number of different settings besides resolution. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THIS, MUCH LESS COMMUNICATE THE POSSIBLE RANGE OF DIFFERENCES TO THE USER!!!??? DirectBlow - er - DirectShow is the single largest crock of SHIT to ooze out of Redmond Since Windows itself. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: All three cameras are currently connected to my system Does this give anyone else the creepy-crawlies? The thought of 3x images of John is not something I want to carry with me for the rest of my life... :-D
Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: ) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! Have you submitted your "wish list" to Microsoft? They do listen :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
Paul Watson wrote: They do listen They don't even answer the phone! Nor have they ever responded to a single email in the many years I've been using their products.
-
Paul Watson wrote: They do listen They don't even answer the phone! Nor have they ever responded to a single email in the many years I've been using their products.
Roger Wright wrote: They don't even answer the phone! Nor have they ever responded to a single email in the many years I've been using their products. Strange, they listen to me. We recommended a whole bunch of stuff for Microsoft Content Management Server and they sent me back a nice personalised email with some "thank you" fluff. We were rather respectful in our recommendations though. No ranting, raving or general Winblow type stuff :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: All three cameras are currently connected to my system Does this give anyone else the creepy-crawlies? The thought of 3x images of John is not something I want to carry with me for the rest of my life... :-D
Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: ) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! Have you submitted your "wish list" to Microsoft? They do listen :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
They "took issue" with my claimns that the documentation sucked and that the samples were lacking in content and - uh - samples. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
They "took issue" with my claimns that the documentation sucked and that the samples were lacking in content and - uh - samples. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: They "took issue" with my claimns that the documentation sucked and that the samples were lacking in content and - uh - samples LOL yes they gave us a bit of grief over moaning about their MSCMS documentation too. Thankfully we put it as a "minor" issue so it was not too big a sticking point. However when you read MSCMS documentation and it refers to its original name (before MS bought the product and rebranded it, it was NCompass Resolution) you begin to wonder just how much effort they went into changing the documentation, or whether they simply did a Replace("NCompass Resoltuion", "MSCMS"). You didn't swear at them, did you? :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: They "took issue" with my claimns that the documentation sucked and that the samples were lacking in content and - uh - samples LOL yes they gave us a bit of grief over moaning about their MSCMS documentation too. Thankfully we put it as a "minor" issue so it was not too big a sticking point. However when you read MSCMS documentation and it refers to its original name (before MS bought the product and rebranded it, it was NCompass Resolution) you begin to wonder just how much effort they went into changing the documentation, or whether they simply did a Replace("NCompass Resoltuion", "MSCMS"). You didn't swear at them, did you? :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
Paul Watson wrote: You didn't swear at them, did you? No, they're still willing to talk to me. When I'm done with this project, I've got a rant already typed out for the DirectBlow mailing list. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Roger Wright wrote: They don't even answer the phone! Nor have they ever responded to a single email in the many years I've been using their products. Strange, they listen to me. We recommended a whole bunch of stuff for Microsoft Content Management Server and they sent me back a nice personalised email with some "thank you" fluff. We were rather respectful in our recommendations though. No ranting, raving or general Winblow type stuff :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
Paul Watson wrote: No ranting, raving or general Winblow type stuff Good choice - that nonsense may be fun banter among friends, but it has no place in a professional contact. I've had good luck getting someone to promise to call me back, but no return call ever resulted. I've stalked MS PMs at Comdex and Networld/Interop, waited patiently in line behind 600 itty-bitty attendees with cell phones and digital cameras around their necks, just for a chance to talk to one. That's worked well, except that as soon as the show is over they go back to Redmond and change the personal email address they gave out all week. My impression, after a couple of decades using Microsoft products, is that the company just sells the stuff - they don't support anything. It's futile to hope for anything more than a buggy product and lousy documentation, if any. That said, I still use their products. Crummy as they are about support, they do pack a lot of features into the stuff, and I'm willing to slog on through trying to discover on my own how to make it work. There's a huge amount of power in these tools they've given us! At least with places like CodeProject around, I've got folks who've been there ahead of me to help!
-
Don't worry, being at work prevents me from having my livesock with me... "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Don't worry, being at work prevents me from having my livesock with me... I don't even want to know what your livesock is, I guess you've graduated from goats though..;P Dan
-
- DirectShow (and the entire DirectX SDK) sucks. Little/no documentation, insufficient samples, and an assumption on the part of microsoft that we're familiar with related jargon makes working with DirectShow something quite a bit more painful than even having to re-install Winblows. 2) Camera manufacturers who don't fill in standard/expected structures in their drivers suck. How can we be expected to write generalized code when we can't count on hardware manufacturers and the people that write their drivers to properly conform to the specified API? 3) Anyone that thinks DirectShow is easy to program to is absolutely out of his/her freakin mind (and they suck, too). These people piss me off because when you ask a question they typically give half-baked answers that hint at a coding solution, but otherwise offer no real substance as far as information goes. 4) The DLL I've been trying to complete since September (which, as you may have already guessed, uses DirectShow) sucks. 5) The fact that there are no decent (or even slightly hinting at being decent) books on the subject sucks. One book is four/five years old, and the other simply regurgitates parts of sample programs supplied in the ineffectual SDK. What the hell kinda shit is that? 6) The fact that there isn't already a set of DirectShow wrapper classes in existance sucks. What sucks even more is that I'm so fed up with the whole damn thing, that I don't want to do a set of classes myself. 7) Other things suck too, but there's simply too damn many of them to mention here, and that in and of itself, SUCKS! "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Having used DS since it was called "Quartz", I can only agree with you. Interesting side note: did you know that the framework for DirectShow was actually specced back in 1992, as something called "Clockwork"? I think that this has a lot to do with how different it works from everything else Microsoft has done in the past five years or so... Tim Lesher http://www.lesher.ws
-
Paul Watson wrote: They do listen They don't even answer the phone! Nor have they ever responded to a single email in the many years I've been using their products.
Roger Wright wrote: They don't even answer the phone! Nor have they ever responded to a single email in the many years I've been using their products Well we've had very good experiences with them. Once I had to implement "Send To" functionality in our app just like explorer does and found out that there's no API for that and that it's not easy at all. After a while they got one of the shell programmers and he walked me through the whole process and even sent me a bunch of snippets of the explorer source code to help me out.
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street