[spencerjford]

Hi guys,
Taking a part this specific point, in relation to the video decoding, which is the main difference between the usage of LAV (Video) Filter with respect to DVDPlayer? So, I'm not referring to the possiblity to elaborate the image, but just to DXVA features that the two alternatives provide.

Lav Filters are generally faster. But if you do use dxva features to decode, you may lose some of the post processing effects you could use with madVR. You may be better off using cpu, as modern cpu's can decode anything. Unless you are looking for x265 decoding, which is still pretty much fast enough on today's cpu's, but a 950 to 960 on nVidia side can decode it in the video card.

Now, in case i'm not understanding you, to make a further point, DVDPlayer can not use lav filters, and madVR will not work with DVDPlayer.

Thanks spencerjford for your answer. It is in fact quite clear that DVDPlayer does not use external filter as well as alternative video renders.

As you correctly depicted, my point was just on the DXVA decoding. Due to the actual CPU processing power, in fact, I'm honestly not expecting such a big difference in the overall performances between the two approaches (LAV Filters vs DVDPlayer decodings), correct? In other words, if I'm not intereseted in alternative video renders (e.g. MadVR), is there any reason to really prefer the use of LAV Filters?

Other than faster fixes to possible problems with decoding audio and video streams, not truly.