I know I said I wasn't posting on this board anymore..... but of course I still have to read it to find out the status of the DRM fixes..... if and when they ever come.....But I keep reading these posts about re-encoding..... and not being able to stream older 1080p videos..... and Netflix not working at all..... and I decided I'm going to submit this post and you can do with it what you will.....Understand..... what I'm about to say has basically already been said by @Cats4U ..... all I'm doing here is saying it in more detail..... but for the life of me I don't know why you all just haven't followed his advice.....For me..... the Windows version of StreamFab 6.1.6.7 x64 is what I'm staying with until the DRM gets fixed..... and I mean really fixed with no re-encoding.....Windows StreamFab 6.1.6.7 x64 gives me the following results..... WITH NO RE-ENCODING.....For AMAZON..... 6.1.6.7 allows me to get a video at 1080p if it was acquired prior to the DRM change..... and if the video was acquired after the DRM change..... it will give me 540p..... or sometimes 480p..... but the lower resolution signals me that the video is being affected by the DRM change..... It should also be noted that I get my MAX through Amazon and the results are the same as I just stated.....For NETFLIX..... 6.1.6.7 allows me to get a video at 1080p if it was acquired prior to the DRM change..... and if the video was acquired after the DRM change..... it will give me a "failed" during analysis after 4 or 5 passes of the "green bar"..... which is telling me that the video is being affected by the DRM change.....For PEACOCK..... 6.1.6.7 allows me to get a video at 1080p if it was acquired prior to the DRM change..... and if the video was acquired after the DRM change..... it will endlessly analyze..... and if you click on "Home"..... you'll see the infamous "Orangey the Cat"..... which of course is telling me that the video is being affected by the DRM change.....Everything else seems to be working as it should as shown in the Banner up top..... with the exception of PLUTO which just endlessly analyzes..... I haven't reported it as a problem because I don't want to muddy the waters and give the developer something he can use as low hanging fruit when his time should be being devoted 24/7 to fixing the DRM shortfalls.....I have tried 6.1.6.8..... 6.1.6.9..... and the Test Version..... whatever number that's supposed to be..... and I'm not wasting my time on what they do or don't do because they all include forms of re-encoding with varying results..... and inhibit some or all of the ability to get videos that were acquired prior to the DRM change from being downloaded in 1080p.....Let me again state..... these are the results I get on my laptop using StreamFab 6.1.6.7 x64..... running the most current Windows 10 version..... I'm in Northern Virginia..... using Verizon FIOS gigabyte..... and I don't use a VPN.....There you have it.If you decide to download it..... follow all the recommendations as far as doing a complete uninstall first.https://dl.dvdfab.cn/download/49_6167_bea0b182/streamfab_x64_6167.exe

Very nice, Weavermovies! Good job explaining. Jack was the one that did all the testing on the shall we say, lesser streamers that are listed as working normally. Things might have changed since then. I will test out Pluto and remove it from the banner if it is not working.In case anyone is wondering where Jack is, he recently received a big promotion at his workplace. He is now a Director of a department within a large Canadian software company. He needed some time to get acquainted with his new position and since we are relatively slow here now, he is taking a short hiatus from our DRM crisis. He'll be back shortly.

Thank you, "weaver", for posting a link to the older version! :cool:I held off on upgrading for as long as possible, but the latest version had a Roku fix that I was looking for, so I took the plunge and upgraded. What I didn't know (or didn't have easy access to) was how to downgrade back to the earlier version since I didn't start keeping archival copies until now...

Thank you @weavermovies! "...if it was acquired prior to the DRM change..... and if the video was acquired after the DRM change...": how can we find out the acquired date of Amazon and Netflix content?

Actually..... I need to modify what I said about "Everything else seems to be working as it should as shown in the Banner up top".....What I said about AMAZON..... MAX..... NETFLIX..... and PEACOCK..... is correct.....What I said about PLUTO and endlessly analyzing stands.....HULU..... PARAMOUNT+..... AND TUBI..... also appear to be working as they did prior to the DRM change.....They are all the streaming services I use and have knowledge.....However..... I have no knowledge regarding the other services which appear and I have not mentioned because I do not use them.....And since I'm here..... one last remark.....When the Banner up top says a service is "back to normal"..... it should be understood that any problem which existed prior to the most recent DRM change will still exist in the "back to normal" state..... because as anyone knows who has been a User for a couple years or longer..... there are items which haven't been fixed for quite some time..... so keep that in mind when you're looking for functions to be present that aren't associated with this latest DRM change..... because they were problems prior to it.

Thank you @weavermovies! "...if it was acquired prior to the DRM change..... and if the video was acquired after the DRM change...": how can we find out the acquired date of Amazon and Netflix content? StreakyThat's a good question..... The answer is you can't.....I go to IMDB for TV episodes to see what date they say it was released..... and that's good most of the time..... but for older series it may not be.....However..... for movies you can't go by the release date..... That's why you see me using the term "acquisition date"..... because that's when a movie is added to a streaming service's catalog..... and that's the date that counts.....If a movie is new..... of course then the release date can be used because it is a hard date..... but for movies a year or more old..... it's a guessing game since you aren't sure when it was acquired by an individual streaming service because all the videos make the rounds from one to another.....I just go by the way a video reacts as I described above in my opening post..... if I get 1080p..... it's before..... and if I can't get it at 1080p..... it's after.....So if you find out where you can get the date 100% of the time..... you can let everyone know..... me included.

you all just haven't followed his advice.....For me..... the Windows version of StreamFab 6.1.6.7 x64 is what I'm staying with until the DRM gets fixed..... and I mean really fixed with no re-encoding.....Windows StreamFab 6.1.6.7 x64 gives me the following results..... WITH NO RE-ENCODING.....For AMAZON..... 6.1.6.7 allows me to get a video at 1080p if it was acquired prior to the DRM change..... and if the video was acquired after the DRM change..... it will give me 540p..... or sometimes 480p..... but the lower resolution signals me that the video is being affected by the DRM change..... It should also be noted that I get my MAX through Amazon and the results are the same as I just stated.....weavermoviesHi,I also want to give my opinion to this (Amazon Prime).I run the 6.1.6.9 Test-Version for the following reasons: Whatever is not affected by the DRM changes I get downloaded in the requested codec, resolution and and bitrate. Whatever is affected by DRM I get in the requested resolution but re-encoded to H.264 (also if requested H.265). The bitrate of the re-encoded content seems to relate to the requested bit rate. So you must keep in mind, that the bit rate of H.256 (HEVC) is lower than for H.264. If you realise that re-encoding takes place and you requested H.265, you may want to stop the download and request H.264 instead alogn with your desired Bitrate as otherwise you get the content re-encoded based on the bitrate you requested for H.265.In that case I normally choose the maximum possible for H.264 then and re-encode afterwards to H.265 with Vidcoder or Hadbrake. As I only watch on a HD TV this quality fits my needs. If I don't want re-encodog, I still have the choice to explicitly request 580p. In that case SF does not reencode. Personally I prefer the quality of reencoded HD over not re-encoded SD.

Hi,I also want to give my opinion to this (Amazon Prime).I run the 6.1.6.9 Test-Version for the following reasons: Whatever is not affected by the DRM changes I get downloaded in the requested codec, resolution and and bitrate. Whatever is affected by DRM I get in the requested resolution but re-encoded to H.264 (also if requested H.265). The bitrate of the re-encoded content seems to relate to the requested bit rate. So you must keep in mind, that the bit rate of H.256 (HEVC) is lower than for H.264. If you realise that re-encoding takes place and you requested H.265, you may want to stop the download and request H.264 instead alogn with your desired Bitrate as otherwise you get the content re-encoded based on the bitrate you requested for H.265.In that case I normally choose the maximum possible for H.265 then and re-encode afterwards to H.265 with Vidcoder or Hadbrake. As I only watch on a HD TV this quality fits my needs. If I don't want re-encodog, I still have the choice to explicitly request 580p. In that case SF does not reencode. Personally I prefer the quality of reencoded HD over not re-encoded SD.KattandersI want to bring your attention to the caveat I included in the first part of my opening post in this thread....."and I decided I'm going to submit this post and you can do with it what you will.....".....Now..... what I'm about to say I say with the utmost respect..... so please..... don't take this as a confrontation.....I understand what you just said..... but how many Users do you think did..... and how many Users did you just thoroughly confuse because they're back to wondering what version they should use?.....I posted information that could easily by digested by the 7 out of 10 who are..... at best..... entry level regarding this downloading video thing..... and that's not a criticism..... because a person only knows what they know until they learn more.....I gave them the version 6.1.6.7 that is constant..... the easiest to use because it leaves nothing to interpretation and produces an expected A or B result..... along with a simple explanation of..... "if the video does this..... it means this (A)..... if not..... it means that (B)"..... and they don't have to worry about re-encoding..... or bit rates..... or file wrappers..... or a third party reprocesser..... or anything else that is confusing to an entry level person.....Personally..... I see posts and wonder why would anyone ever choose to download in other than H265 (HVEC)..... or other than CVBR..... assuming they're both available..... but in the grand scheme of things..... it doesn't matter what I wonder..... It's my choice..... and I know why I'm making it.....So Yes!.... What you said obviously works for you and is correct..... and that's great.....But what is the goal of this forum..... especially now..... when there are two versions 6.1.6.8 and 6.1.6.9..... a Test version that doesn't even have a number..... all acting differently..... and no one seems to know exactly how?.....I was trying to bring things to a point where there is no wondering by the people who are doing the wondering..... because the people who have the knowledge don't need to read what I wrote at all.....Therefore..... I hope for two things after this is read.....First..... that you can see why I responded and take no offense because I assure you..... none is intended..... and.....Two..... that anyone who read the opening post of this thread takes my advice and uses 6.1.6.7..... unless they are of a knowledge level that they know why they're deciding not to.....Thank you for your understanding.

Well, I have had the program for a while and downloaded everything I want to keep, so for users like me, it is also useless. but for new people coming here, it is a nice gesture to have a working version of old movies. But once they get updated it will be also useless unless, of course, they want 540p or nothing at all that is new. After the above dates that are listed in the banner, the program is useless.

Therefore..... I hope for two things after this is read.....First..... that you can see why I responded and take no offense because I assure you..... none is intended..... and.....Two..... that anyone who read the opening post of this thread takes my advice and uses 6.1.6.7..... unless they are of a knowledge level that they know why they're deciding not to.....weavermoviesNo offenece and no confrontation!You gave your advice and I responded with my opinion about getting the best possible quality of content with the current situation. And yes, I assume a basic knowledge about codecs (H.264 / H.265 = HEVC), bitrate (CBR versus CVBR), and audio compression such as AAC or Dolby AC-3 - after all, these are the options for the user to choose from when downloading content from Amazon Prime.The only difference between 6.1.6.7 and the Test-Version which is based on 6.1.6.9 is, that HD/Full HD (720p/1080p blue ray quality) content which is subject to the DRM-change is downloaded only in SD (DVD-quality 480p) while in the Test-Version the choosen resolution (HD/Full HD) is maintained, which means, that a HD/Full-HD content still is HD/Full-HD after the download, however, the content gets re-encoded in order to save a playable video to the PC. Re-encoding means a minimal loss in quality compared to the source of the content - similar to editing a photo in JPG format which also gets re-encoded when saving it. Each re-encode loses quality due to the fact that all these codecs use "lossy compression".Conclusion:Use the 6.1.6.7 if all you want to do is to click "Download" without any worries, however, accepting SD quality for content subject to DRM change.Use the test version if you are prepared to have much longer download (processing) times due to re-encoding for content subject to DRM change (check that the re-encoded video is complete by fast forwarding to the last few minutes of the downloaded content).

i dont know due to some reason old movies also i am getting 480p in amazon in the version 6.1.6.7

StreamFab 6.1.6.7 x64..... And Why You Should Be Using This Version

fab_admin

So, you aren't going to send a StreamFab.log as requested? Starting rumors without providing proof is even more shameful and tiresome.
Cats4U

You can tell the forum is becoming desperate to cover up the truth when one of the moderators makes a false claim by saying a forum user is spreading "rumors". It doesn't take a genius to deduce that others have shared the same sentiment when they stated the new software is encoding the DL. The log stated "NotifyEncodeMode" and the processing stage is taking over 20 mins to complete. You stated yourself that you refuse to use any of the software with the encoding and will not offer assistance on the software higher than 6.1.6.8. We get that. So, relax.

Try not to attack forum users next time because it is making the forum look like a circus.

Cats4U

I'm sorry that you think I'm part of a cover-up. If only you two knew all the things we fight for you behind the scenes. Heck, both Jack and I have been accused of being too harsh to Management right in this forum. According to Brozilla, I still owe him an apology because I frazzled his nerves when I used naughty words at Management. I just need a StreamFab.log in order to make certain whether stream downloading or (so-called) re-encoding is being used. I have actually asked Wilson to document key sections of the StreamFab.log that will make it easy to determine which mode is used. What is your problem with you attaching a StreamFab.log, voal and smithbrad? Hundreds of logs are uploaded in a year, and they help solve problems, both for you and other users. Without a StreamFab.log I have nothing to show Wilson to pass on to the Developers.

Cats4U

I know this makes me sound awfully lazy, but I just watch the progress. For a series that I downloaded today, each episode took about 30 seconds to download and 6 minutes to process. I'm quite certain that means it re-encoded, else the process step would have been just a few seconds.
wyhtmgm

The truth just came out seconds ago from Wilson on Zoom -

Download Mode is used if downloading SD video for the new released Amazon video

In others words, if you downloaded at 720p or 1080p a newly released Amazon video, you would get it in re-encoded mode.
Damn them!! Who the hell wants SD, in Download or Re-encoded mode. Of course, we are going to try to download in HD. I can't believe he kept this little, tiny fact from us. I think this might be the end for me. I'm tired of being either lied to or told nothing.

Cats4U

I'm sorry that you think I'm part of a cover-up. If only you two knew all the things we fight for you behind the scenes.

Download Mode is used if downloading SD video for the new released Amazon video

@Wilson Wang: Why would you not tell us that when 6.1.7.0 was released? I've been fighting with users all day long over them saying that Amazon is using re-encoding. Jack has been fighting with them, too, all while he was busy at work. I can't put up with this crap much longer. Get a handle on your Developer and get him to give the people what they want. You're supposed to be his boss if you are the Project Manager. I know if I ran DVDFab, he would have been out on his ass weeks ago. And to be honest, you would be also, for letting this go on for so long and letting him get away with this. No American, Canadian, or European company would put up with this the way that DVDFab does. Quite frankly, you should try to get into negotiations with AnyStream to sell out to them. Can you tell that I'm totally pissed?

Cats4U

Wilson has changed his story again ---

Was:

Download Mode is used if downloading SD video for the new released Amazon video

Is Now:

For Amazon, it‘s only used the download mode for audio when downloading the new released video from Amazon.

Ninko

@Cats4U I'm not surprised you're getting annoyed with what you're having to deal with all the time. I'm sure MOST of us users, me included, appreciate what you're doing in the background to get all this fixed for us! Keep going!

smithbrad

@Cats4U I'm not surprised you're getting annoyed with what you're having to deal with all the time. I'm sure MOST of us users, me included, appreciate what you're doing in the background to get all this fixed for us! Keep going!
Ninko

I agree with this, completely.

However, as to why I didn't see the need to send log files is because based on my experience the physical results trumped the log files. Log files are a great debugging tool, especially for one that has detailed knowledge of the code. They can use the logs to determine the area in the code of question and then step through that code while processing to detect the exact issue. Since we don't have access to the code and knowing what the output should be for a particular download before the DRM issue and through every release up to the latest, the physical evidence in my view, is better than the log files. It just seemed to me that no matter how many threads I posted it in, my analysis was not being taken seriously.

Cats4U

You weren't being taken seriously because you refused to follow our standard procedure of sending in your StreamFab.log. https://forum.dvdfab.cn/forum/software-support-english/youtube-to-mp3-youtube-video-downloader/433509-how-to-post-issues-in-the-streamfab-section This is the way we do things here. It is no different from what information that Mona expected of users with problems when she was here.
One thing that is different now is that anyone that refuses to provide a StreamFab.log is now suspected of using a cracked version of StreamFab.com. It became known that on a popular third-party StreamFab forum that caters somewhat to illegal activity at times, someone had posted in the past telling users of cracked versions of SF not to attach a StreamFab.log to a message here because we can tell that you are using a crack. I'm always honest with the users, and I'm honest now, you were checked to see if you had a legally registered SF license, and you do. As for the other user in this recent conversation that also refused to provide a log file, they have not been able to be confirmed as a registered licensee yet. The investigation continues.
Having put that out there, that is absolutely not my reason to asking for a StreamFab.log. Since Jack and I refuse to use any version of SF that does re-encoding in any of its modules, reading someone else's log is the only way that we can know what is going on with a download. It does not matter whether YOU think you know what is going on, WE need to know by either running the tests ourselves or by reading someone else's log files. Only then can we send it up the ladder to finally reach the Developer and hopefully get whatever problem there is fixed. Do you know how many times we've had users 100% certain that StreamFab had a bug and that was the reason they couldn't download something, only for us to show them that it was operator error? I'm not downplaying your knowledge or your findings. It is just that the information we find is what will reach the Developer, not yours. That's the way the system is set up, for right or wrong.

smithbrad

You weren't being taken seriously because you refused to follow our standard procedure of sending in your StreamFab.log. https://forum.dvdfab.cn/forum/software-support-english/youtube-to-mp3-youtube-video-downloader/433509-how-to-post-issues-in-the-streamfab-section This is the way we do things here. It is no different from what information that Mona expected of users with problems when she was here.
One thing that is different now is that anyone that refuses to provide a StreamFab.log is now suspected of using a cracked version of StreamFab.com. It became known that on a popular third-party StreamFab forum that caters somewhat to illegal activity at times, someone had posted in the past telling users of cracked versions of SF not to attach a StreamFab.log to a message here because we can tell that you are using a crack. I'm always honest with the users, and I'm honest now, you were checked to see if you had a legally registered SF license, and you do. As for the other user in this recent conversation that also refused to provide a log file, they have not been able to be confirmed as a registered licensee yet. The investigation continues.
Having put that out there, that is absolutely not my reason to asking for a StreamFab.log. Since Jack and I refuse to use any version of SF that does re-encoding in any of its modules, reading someone else's log is the only way that we can know what is going on with a download. It does not matter whether YOU think you know what is going on, WE need to know by either running the tests ourselves or by reading someone else's log files. Only then can we send it up the ladder to finally reach the Developer and hopefully get whatever problem there is fixed. Do you know how many times we've had users 100% certain that StreamFab had a bug and that was the reason they couldn't download something, only for us to show them that it was operator error? I'm not downplaying your knowledge or your findings. It is just that the information we find is what will reach the Developer, not yours. That's the way the system is set up, for right or wrong.
Cats4U

Just forget it. I've been in software development for 30+ years. What I provided was more concrete proof then any logs. As stated, I've downloaded and tested each version, from what I recall someone said you haven't even installed the latest versions that encode. I've done customer support also for over 30+ years, and I rely on whatever information users provide, not just logs. If that is all these developers respond to then that is their loss. if my input is of no use here then fine, I won't offer it anymore. I'm done.

fabuloustream

Confirmed 6.1.7.0 is working partially. Downloaded Road House twice yesterday, one is >3 GB and one is less than 600 MB, recalled it was about 2.6 GB when it was downloading. Examined both file and showed identical bitrate in h264 despite setting it to h265. You can try to download it again at another time or restarting the app. After closing out the app, check Task Manager and kill any processes still running with the app and QCef.exe before launching it again. Will try to provide logs if I can replicate it as I cleared it later that day.

Occidio

I would definitely say "partially", decided to retry Romancing the stone on amc, i could only get it in 540 before so I am testing 6.1.7.0 out now and it stated it is downloading at 1080 but the processing is taking a long time with a pegged gpu. If this is just re-encoding, i will wait till the next version comes out. Would rather wait for native 1080 instead of a re-encode because if its at the same quality as Unifab performs, no thank you.

smithbrad

You weren't being taken seriously because you refused to follow our standard procedure of sending in your StreamFab.log. https://forum.dvdfab.cn/forum/software-support-english/youtube-to-mp3-youtube-video-downloader/433509-how-to-post-issues-in-the-streamfab-section This is the way we do things here. It is no different from what information that Mona expected of users with problems when she was here.
One thing that is different now is that anyone that refuses to provide a StreamFab.log is now suspected of using a cracked version of StreamFab.com. It became known that on a popular third-party StreamFab forum that caters somewhat to illegal activity at times, someone had posted in the past telling users of cracked versions of SF not to attach a StreamFab.log to a message here because we can tell that you are using a crack. I'm always honest with the users, and I'm honest now, you were checked to see if you had a legally registered SF license, and you do. As for the other user in this recent conversation that also refused to provide a log file, they have not been able to be confirmed as a registered licensee yet. The investigation continues.
Having put that out there, that is absolutely not my reason to asking for a StreamFab.log. Since Jack and I refuse to use any version of SF that does re-encoding in any of its modules, reading someone else's log is the only way that we can know what is going on with a download. It does not matter whether YOU think you know what is going on, WE need to know by either running the tests ourselves or by reading someone else's log files. Only then can we send it up the ladder to finally reach the Developer and hopefully get whatever problem there is fixed. Do you know how many times we've had users 100% certain that StreamFab had a bug and that was the reason they couldn't download something, only for us to show them that it was operator error? I'm not downplaying your knowledge or your findings. It is just that the information we find is what will reach the Developer, not yours. That's the way the system is set up, for right or wrong.
Cats4U

The funny thing about all this is that I wasn't reporting a bug for the developers to respond to, which is what would have required a log. I was just offering evidence to others that were asking the question about whether it was still re-encoding. I fully expected to be validated by the development team, which in the end I was. I'll leave now and wait for a potential release that someday performs HD downloads again.

« Previous Page