[REL] Suspect (2005)

[Ziggy Plock]

Only BitrateViewer-1.0.2.zip seems to be virusfree:
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/247 ... ?nocache=1

BitrateViewer-syslibs.zip
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/235 ... ?nocache=1

BitrateViewerSetup23.exe and each of the following has one virus, SecureAge APEX Malicious
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/9fa ... ?nocache=1

BitrateViewerSetup103.exe
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/a39 ... 5f3efa9dd2

BitrateViewerSetup211
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/c5c ... 3fa05d3013

BitrateViewerSetup22
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/f8c ... 27eefe993d

BitrateViewerSetup21
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/5f2 ... 7f8eac4996

[Night457]

SecureAge APEX is one of the antimalware vendors, not a virus itself. 1 out of 66 vendors flagging BitrateViewer as Malicious is clearly a false positive. If you believe the reports of the 1.5% vs the opposing 98.5%, then you are just opening yourself up to any nonsense!

[Ziggy Plock]

Sure, there are indications of a false positive, but still, my rule of thumb applies: If i don't really need it, don't get it. I've lost too 4 TB hard drives to wanna risk experiencing a locked up drive...

[Ziggy Plock]

It allows you to raise the quality in the scenes that move more slowly where the eye tends to wander and notice blocks and (...)

This article might be of interest to you too:

(...)If you’ve to compare two videos with different resolutions and bitrates, the bits/pixel value gives you a common data point to compare how much compression was applied to the file. Most codecs get more efficient at higher resolutions, and, of course, HEVC is more efficient than H.264, which is why a bits-per-pixel value of 0.039 for an 8K HEVC encoded video is more than adequate.(...)

[Night457]

my rule of thumb applies: If i don't really need it, don't get it. I've lost too 4 TB hard drives to wanna risk experiencing a locked up drive...

OUCH! I admit, my attitude would probably be different if that had happened to me. That sounds like ransomware.

[Saving space by spoilering the rest]:

Spoiler: When it comes to computers, I do not know how I would evaluate "need." Technically speaking, outside of the workplace I do not NEED computers at all, and I am sure I would be in better health if I spent more time exercising rather than fiddling around online. It's all a matter of what I WANT to do! If there is one piece of software that does the same as another but seems safer, then the choice is easy. When all the options seem to have drawbacks, then I have the choice of using none of them or else picking what seems reasonably safe and convenient, and NOT spending hours investigating every single option. If I choose to use none of the software options, then my hard drives may not get locked but I will have nothing saved on them that I "need" to keep. So I have gained nothing by choosing to do nothing, because I am simply refraining from using the computer. That would be like owning an automobile and keeping it insured, inspected and well-maintained, but never actually driving it anywhere. Low risk and low reward. Having a computer and only using it to read email and watch YouTube videos seems boring to me. But clearly, you do far more than that. Your self-imposed restrictions apparently still permit you to do the things you want. Never mind me, I am just randomly musing ...

[lunastar2021]

beautiful poems