The Competition

[Sebastian001]

Chameleon Is the situation at MusicFab as crappy as it is here? You're often on their forums.

[giQz]

Cover art is an image that is embedded in the video or audio file. There are many ways to embed an image of your choice (I use MP3Tag), but it is convenient to have the download software embed the cover art image that the streaming service has already provided. This is one area where StreamFab has the advantage over The Competition. I don't think The Competition is unable to embed the cover art, they simply choose not to. It's almost as if it's a matter of principle for them.

I also use MP3Tag to embed an image to an MP3 or MP4 file.

To me, cover art or a thumbnail image is like a welcome greeting or celebration after crossing the finish line of a downloading race.

If the image is present, it usually is a good sign for me, so I proceed with a CRC check as a simple file integrity test. An error would indicate something went wrong in the downloading, so I either re-download or use another tool to hopefully fill in the missing bits (as in the days of IRC downloads).

If the image is absent, it makes me second-guess the status of the download, so I end up doing more tests.

As for the competition, I wonder what the real reason was to exclude the image since it would have been already provided by the source streamer.

I was using StreamFab 6.1.6.7 and stopped after reading the 6.1.7.5 release notes (and the "proper" status update by the last moderator, read as "The Last Starfighter"), so I went with the competition. I still prefer the StreamFab interface, but I want a product that works. That product from the competition, despite the quirks and glitches, does at its core what StreamFab used to do.

The difference is that the competition is apparently more transparent and determined to provide a good product which I cannot ascribe to this seemingly "new" or "current" Fengtao company.

[-Blaze\]

I won't even look at software if it doesn't have a perpetual license of some kind so as far as I'm concerned "the competition" doesn't exist. I've been very happy with StreamFab and have gotten my monies worth out of it even if they are never able to get it back to full, untouched downloads again. Some people will also still find value in re-encoding, recorded or SD downloads as they only care about getting the content and don't necessarily want to rapidly fill up their storage with as many pixels as possible. People have different lines in the sand for what is acceptable quality. For instance I absolutely do not care about getting the highest possible quality audio. I actually find that most HD audio tracks have terribly unbalanced voice to music/effects loudness on stereo setups, which is all I use.

[artsunlimited]

I guess that's a plus for some. I didn't even realize it was a thing until now.. My media server handles that but if other media servers don't I guess it matters. If I knew SF was embedding images in the video I would definitely want a way to strip that out.

Forget it, Jake - it's Metadata. What JeffDavis is calling "cover art" is actually a metadata thumbnail that can be displayed for each video. If you see a title card or a "preview" image for a film or a series episode on Amazon or any other provider in the download menu, then that image is what SF will display on the downloaded video. If you store your videos on an external drive like I do, those thumbnails look a helluva lot better than a bunch of muddy or black rectangles that are the result of an auto-capture of a frame so many seconds into the video.

The problem with AS is that they DO show what should be the actual preview thumbnail in the download menu, but the result sure ain't that image. JeffDavis is correct in his assessment - I inquired over a year ago and they absolutely refuse to show them.

While Chameleon is absolutely right and has posted before (thanks, btw!) about freeware Icaros, which will let you change that thumbnail, it's a pain in the posterior to do it for each AS download simply because they fancy themselves as such goddamn purists. They should regard it as merely industrial design and marketing and just unclench.

[Chameleon]

Posted by giQz
As for the competition, I wonder what the real reason was to exclude the image since it would have been already provided by the source streamer

I get a thumbnail from the competition all I ever got from Fab was a clip from the movie.

[wyhtmgm]

I get a thumbnail from the competition all I ever got from Fab was a clip from the movie.

Are you talking about not getting a separate file? I assume that by "thumbnail" the others mean the image that's embedded in the file so when you view a folder with icons (like selecting "Large Icons", not "Details"). I'm not impressed by the image, because sometimes it's for the wrong title. For example, I once downloaded a children's show and the thumbnail was for an XXX movie of the same title. I lose the thumbnail anyway since I always re-encode as discussed in another thread today.

[artsunlimited]

I won't even look at software if it doesn't have a perpetual license of some kind so as far as I'm concerned "the competition" doesn't exist. I've been very happy with StreamFab and have gotten my monies worth out of it even if they are never able to get it back to full, untouched downloads again. Some people will also still find value in re-encoding, recorded or SD downloads as they only care about getting the content and don't necessarily want to rapidly fill up their storage with as many pixels as possible. People have different lines in the sand for what is acceptable quality. For instance I absolutely do not care about getting the highest possible quality audio. I actually find that most HD audio tracks have terribly unbalanced voice to music/effects loudness on stereo setups, which is all I use.

They only announced they'd decided to discontinue selling lifetime licenses for AS in January - about a week before the last CDM revocation, so that doesn't exactly give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

OTOH, consider that if SF already has all the money it's gonna get from you, what's the motivation for them to work overtime to fix the current mess, especially if other providers could go the route of Netflix's DRM in the near future? Not so pressing, right? People all over this forum are kicking themselves for recently buying a lifetime license, and I'd hate to see SF's sales figures in another 6 months.

Whereas if the only way "the competition" can maintain a revenue stream is with renewable licenses, it actually puts a lot more presure on them to deliver a working product, because otherwise people will just drop them. If the whole shebang goes the way of Netflix within the next year, then you can just walk away without having invested too much.

[NewMelle]

Forget it, Jake - it's Metadata. What JeffDavis is calling "cover art" is actually a metadata thumbnail that can be displayed for each video. If you see a title card or a "preview" image for a film or a series episode on Amazon or any other provider in the download menu, then that image is what SF will display on the downloaded video. If you store your videos on an external drive like I do, those thumbnails look a helluva lot better than a bunch of muddy or black rectangles that are the result of an auto-capture of a frame so many seconds into the video.

The problem with AS is that they DO show what should be the actual preview thumbnail in the download menu, but the result sure ain't that image. JeffDavis is correct in his assessment - I inquired over a year ago and they absolutely refuse to show them.

While Chameleon is absolutely right and has posted before (thanks, btw!) about freeware Icaros, which will let you change that thumbnail, it's a pain in the posterior to do it for each AS download simply because they fancy themselves as such goddamn purists. They should regard it as merely industrial design and marketing and just unclench.

Okay, now I think I understand. My media server must do that for me. Something this small embedded in the file is no concern to me, just not 1600x2400 DVD covers.

I don't really care what I see in the download list, what I care about is it actually DOES download. SF can have the "officail" thumbnails. For me this would be a very minor concern if it mattered to me at all. DRM, endless analysys, StreamClient.exe crashes, login issues and audio downgrades among so many others I consider far more pressing. Nearly all of these issues I solved with just two little letters.


Are these the little doohickeys you're talking about? Well, if the shifter knob on my Lamborghini (AS) is lamb's skin instead of corinthian leather I'm not gonna trade that puppy in for a 72 Pinto (SF).

[JeffDavis]

If I knew SF was embedding images in the video I would definitely want a way to strip that out.

Mp3tag, a free program for Windows, allows you to add, remove and modify cover art and other tags. I routinely convert PNG images to JPG images to reduce the size. It can also scale down large images. I routinely scale down images larger than 1920x1080.

[NewMelle]

I've got MP3Tag or something just like it here somewhere. Used that years ago when I was converting all my CDs to MP3. I haven't noticed any difference in behavior between the older files I've downloaded with SF and the newer with AS. My guess is the media server does that for me.

[artsunlimited]

Are these the little doohickeys you're talking about? Well, if the shifter knob on my Lamborghini (AS) is lamb's skin instead of corinthian leather I'm not gonna trade that puppy in for a 72 Pinto (SF).

LOL, now who's the one with the more-than-appropriate analogy? No one seems to have a fire extinguisher for that flaming Pinto, either.

Yeah, those little doohickeys are exactly what thumbnails are, no one's been cramming a large-rez DVD cover image into the file.

[hizbf]

LOL, now who's the one with the more-than-appropriate analogy? No one seems to have a fire extinguisher for that flaming Pinto, either.

Yeah, those little doohickeys are exactly what thumbnails are, no one's been cramming a large-rez DVD cover image into the file.

I am currently unable to log in to my YouTube account using the streamfab method and have been blocked by Google!

[AllNight]

Are you using Windows 7 or Windows 10? For Windows 7, you have to have a local install of version 109 of Chrome or Chromium on your system to log into YouTube in StreamFab. Close StreamFab, then log in to YouTube via your local Chrome or Chromium browser, close the browser, then next time you start StreamFab and go in to YouTube, StreamFab will import the cookies. If you are on Windows 10 or 11, use MS Edge instead.

[hizbf]

Are you using Windows 7 or Windows 10? For Windows 7, you have to have a local install of version 109 of Chrome or Chromium on your system to log into YouTube in StreamFab. Close StreamFab, then log in to YouTube via your local Chrome or Chromium browser, close the browser, then next time you start StreamFab and go in to YouTube, StreamFab will import the cookies. If you are on Windows 10 or 11, use MS Edge instead.

I am using Windows 11, and I am using the method you mentioned for Windows 7, which is also the method provided by Streamfab. However, it was blocked by Google and prompted that it is not secure. I am using the latest version of Google Chrome, and the cache of Streamfab has been deleted. The software has also been uninstalled and reinstalled, but it is useless. I cannot log in to my YouTube account！

[artsunlimited]

I am currently unable to log in to my YouTube account using the streamfab method and have been blocked by Google!

You might consider first looking for a YouTube topic for this issue - and if there isn't one, starting a new separate topic so it isn't buried in this thread about "the competition." That way more people can weigh in and hopefully come up with a solution.