Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: FFmpeg Moves Closer To 1.0 Release

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    You mean the ffmpeg team is just taking libav's work and getting all the press? In FLOSS development this sort of things usually are pretty clear (development is done in the open...). I'm reading at some places that ffmpeg development is getting faster than libav's. How can that be possible if they're just importing the other team's work? I also read somewhere Debian is choosing libav over ffmpeg, but I'm not sure this is true.

    I'm genuinely asking. I have no preference in any party "winning". I do have some interest in knowing who's "winning", though. In a few months time I'm planning to start a project based on these libs and I'd rather go with "the winners".
    Debian has indeed gone with libav. (the package is still called "ffmpeg" though)

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    I'm reading at some places that ffmpeg development is getting faster than libav's. How can that be possible if they're just importing the other team's work?
    One good thing that came from the ffmpeg/libav schism is that development of both now happens at fast pace, and they are more welcoming of external patches than ever. When ffmpeg still had the "monopoly", developers could afford to reject or delay patches.

    As always with free software, you can pick what you want as long as the license permits it. Even from a non-friendly fork.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleve Sicofante View Post
    I'm genuinely asking. I have no preference in any party "winning". I do have some interest in knowing who's "winning", though. In a few months time I'm planning to start a project based on these libs and I'd rather go with "the winners".
    While there is no firm commitment to keeping libav and ffmpeg drop-in replacements of each other, I think this is at least a goal. So using either for your project will be fine.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Until we can release UVD programming info, what patches to avconf/ffmpeg do you think we should be writing and sending ?
    Seeing as how Nvidia's vdpau is going to work with your hardware before your own UVD, just keep it.

    Nothing like putting the last nail in the coffin of your own specification due to hangups over imaginary property.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    820

    Default

    Using UVD is preferable especially in mobile devices, as it is more energy efficient than decoding in shaders.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    Using UVD is preferable especially in mobile devices, as it is more energy efficient than decoding in shaders.
    I noticed according to Wikipedia that vdpau supports way more codecs. It doesn't say anything about either one of them supporting open standards like VP8 or Theora though, just proprietary codecs controlled by the MPEG cartel.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    820

    Default

    I was under the impression that VP8 is sufficiently similar to H.264 that it could at least partially be decoded by H.264 decoders.

    VDPAU is the analog to XvBA. It makes no sense to compare it with UVD (which would be the analog to PureVideo).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    and the key point you make "telling" rather than showing and using the (non existent) code for a full generation of the older GPU/UVD products, but a direct URL to this new "Graphic Card Next" text you read might be useful as a context reference so if you have it, add it somewhere perhaps....
    Well, I tried to find it but came up almost empty. I guess the SAMU (Secure Asset Management Unit) was the one which reminded me of bridgman's posts. Re-reading it made me unsure...
    Btw, the site was not even in English, so apologies.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Wow. Looks like I missed an entire page of posts in this thread.

    Popper, I often have trouble responding to your posts because you make "statements of fact" where not only the statement is incorrect but the assumptions on which you base your statement appear to be wrong as well. It makes it really hard to respond with anything smaller than a white paper, and it's been years since I've had time for something like that.

    In the same way that kernel maintainers like big changes to be broken up into a set of smaller patches (reviewable-sized chunks) would it be possible for you to take a bit more of a bottom-up approach and validate your assumptions first ?

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    well clearly if you John as the head of the AMD Linux projects
    I'm not the "head of AMD Linux" and never have been - part of my job includes managing the open source graphics effort and being part of a group which helps with proposals for releasing information to the open source community. The other parts of my job tend to be cross-OS rather than being Linux-specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    cant walk into the board room (or know someone above you that can) and put a good case to release this antiquated UVD programming data (cant do L5.1 etc) by now, and not actually get them to write the OpenCL OpenVideo driver library for Linux as you say they havent even bothered to do that yet after far more then a year..... ( so you imply the windows version is not written in standard C99 code !then", perhaps its written in MS basic and doesnt conform to the spec so cant be simply conpiled and change where needed for the generic linux framework as is usual)
    Programming language has nothing to do with it - the internal APIs of different operating systems are significantly different, it's not a "scan replace" effort to port code to a totally different OS and video framework. It's not a few hundred lines, or even a few thousand.

    I think I can safely reveal that the code is not written in MS Basic

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    THEN it seems clear YOU as the head of the AMD Linux projects NEED to do one of two things... say fuck it , we cant help Linux end users use any form of AMD/ATI hardware assisted video decode directly other than whats available from 3rd party's...
    Or, we could pick our battles, prioritize the ones where we can deliver useful benefit to our customers relatively quickly (eg display & 3D engine) and continue to release new information there, while working on the harder problems (open source video decode is the poster child for hard problems) in the background, and releasing code and programming information in other areas like GPU compute where we can. I'm sure it all looks boring and terribly slow from the outside, but you seem much more willing to give up on this area than we are.

    Things might be more clear (although not as simple) if you didn't write off some of AMD's efforts as "third party", btw...

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    or get the board to stop fuckin about and give you same money and resources (if that really is the problem) to write something (at this point i suppose users don't really care "what it is" as long as it works in ffmpeg and can be openly ported from there everywhere else as usual) that the users can use and you and legal can be happy with , end of story really.... but that's your choice as the head of Linux to do something or not as is the case for way more than a year
    I guess this is what I don't get. We released the XvBA API and some sample "how to use it" code a year or so ago. That API info is finally starting to be used (which is great news !), and AFAIK Tim is talking with the developers about issues they found (eg Tim was investigating a reported issue with thread safety under certain conditions).

    Is your point that we somehow snubbed the ffmpeg community by not treating them as "special", or that we should have written all the patches ourselves rather than just providing API information, sample code, a mailing list, and a bit of support ?
    Last edited by bridgman; 12-18-2011 at 12:13 PM.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    would it be possible for you to take a bit more of a bottom-up approach and validate your assumptions first ?
    A guy called "Popper" being told that - *falls to the floor laughing*

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    That laundry list of changes and yet still no mkv ordered chapters support.
    It does, however, support OS/2 threads now.

    They added TwinVQ file format support a while back.

    Priorities.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •