Open-Source GStreamer VA-API Plug-In Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Open-Source GStreamer VA-API Plug-In Support

Our friends at the French-based Splitted Desktop Systems that developed the NVIDIA VDPAU back-end for VA-API and similarly provide an AMD XvBA back-end for VA-API -- that is the only method right now for utilizing XvBA right now -- have furthered their Linux video contributions today. Splitted Desktop Systems has released an experimental set of open-source GStreamer plug-ins that support VA-API...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODIzNA

[V!NCENT]

I do no longer care about MPEG. If any of you have also read about the latest licensing horrors about MPEG-LA you will not care about it either. Did you know that any MPEG video you create/shoot, regaredless oif converting it to OGG, will have your copyright be transferred to MPEG-LA? Read the manual of you consumer and pro camera's!

Will now try to evade anything MPEG related wherever I can. Goodbye!

[SgtH3nry3]

Finally, so now we can almost consider VA-API a de-facto video acceleration standard for x86 Linux since it works on Intel, VIA, AMD and nVidia?

[d2kx]

Well, hopefully libva and the XvBA and VDPAU backends can be installed in the big distributions like Ubuntu at the same you install the graphics drivers, or video players in the future, so you don't have to even think about this to get this functionality.

[bugmenot2]

Wow, this is great, thanks Gwenole!

Now we just need VA-API support in free drivers. I'd love to see this through Gallium3d.

[deanjo]

I do no longer care about MPEG. If any of you have also read about the latest licensing horrors about MPEG-LA you will not care about it either. Did you know that any MPEG video you create/shoot, regaredless oif converting it to OGG, will have your copyright be transferred to MPEG-LA? Read the manual of you consumer and pro camera's!

Can you link a owners manual where it says such a thing? None of the ones I've observed have had such a stipulation.

[chaos386]

Can you link a owners manual where it says such a thing? None of the ones I've observed have had such a stipulation.

The owner's manual for my Canon 500D has this to say:

About MPEG-4 Licensing

“This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard.”
* Notice displayed in English as required.

Basically, it's licensed to encode H.264 for any purpose (including commercial use), and is licensed to decode H.264, even if it was produced by unlicensed encoders, provided the video was for noncommercial use.

I'm hoping V!NCENT was being sarcastic.

[nanonyme]

I do no longer care about MPEG. If any of you have also read about the latest licensing horrors about MPEG-LA you will not care about it either. Did you know that any MPEG video you create/shoot, regaredless oif converting it to OGG, will have your copyright be transferred to MPEG-LA?

Except even if they'd say that, the claim would be void since it's against copyright laws in most countries.

[waucka]

The owner's manual for my Canon 500D has this to say:



Basically, it's licensed to encode H.264 for any purpose (including commercial use), and is licensed to decode H.264, even if it was produced by unlicensed encoders, provided the video was for noncommercial use.

I'm hoping V!NCENT was being sarcastic.

The issue V!NCENT is getting at is that some camcorders (even some labeled "professional") have licenses that only permit non-commercial use of H.264 encoding patents. Thus, you cannot use these camcorders for commercial purposes, regardless of what format you distribute the video in. Bizarre, huh?

Personally, I will use my DSLR's HD video recording capabilities for whatever purpose I damn well please, and if the MPEG-LA wants me to pay them for the privilege of using my property to earn money, they can take their damn license fees from my cold, dead hands. Bastards.

[V!NCENT]

The issue V!NCENT is getting at is that some camcorders (even some labeled "professional") have licenses that only permit non-commercial use of H.264 encoding patents. Thus, you cannot use these camcorders for commercial purposes, regardless of what format you distribute the video in. Bizarre, huh?

Bingo. You license the right (discusting) to distribute (thus copy) a video that you shoot.

You do not have the right to distribute it for anything else. That means you have to get permission from MPEG-LA to distribute it for commercial purposes (even if converted to OGG) and pay money to obtain the right to copy it from anything, unless you have a license from MPEG-LA (in this case your camera).

That might not be copyright as stated by your countries law, but it is in fact a de facto copyright transfer to MPEG-LA.

This is insane!