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

[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/softwa...eamfab-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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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/softwa...eamfab-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.

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.

[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/softwa...eamfab-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]

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!

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.

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.

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. 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.

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

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.

[smithbrad]

I can't say it is anything until I see a complete StreamFab.log of the session.

My findings are good enough for me. Except it, ignore it, as you please. However, I'd be interested in hearing anything to explain how my findings could be a download and not re-encoding? I've downloaded all versions and have tested each one.

[Cats4U]

So, are you saying it's not re-encoding?

I can't say it is anything until I see a complete StreamFab.log of the session.

[Germania]

You are right, the DL I tried on another computer shows it encoding. It appalling that the release note says it suppose to be DL,
when it in fact encoding the DL. Shameful

I wrote this more than one time about 6169 testversion - this is the same (and same text) with 6170.
The Amazon "download mode" for new released videos applies to EAC3 Audio - Example:

> Amazon: Is it true that you can now download newer stuff normally?

No, this only applies to EAC3 Audio, newer videos are re-encoded

> Netflix: The upscale/re-encode thing seems to be there now.

Amazon and Netflix download the selected resolution and if there
is no key for decryption (newers titles) it use re-encoding.

{source} and also here