Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: FFmpeg Now Supports HEVC/H.265 Decoding

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    So sounds like this really doesn't matter one tiny bit. I sure don't want to turn my 6 or 8 core desktop into a vacuum cleaner just to annoy myself playing videos at a resolution for which nobody even has a display capable of viewing.
    Meanwhile I'd enjoy having 1080p videos that you wouldn't actually need to wait half an hour to buffer.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Meanwhile I'd enjoy having 1080p videos that you wouldn't actually need to wait half an hour to buffer.
    That still makes a 6 or 8 core run full out and compete with your vacuum cleaner to see what is louder. Enjoy your movie... if you can actually hear it.

    Also for... buffering? First off... who buffers? Download the damned thing. You can download an entire movie in considerably less time than that. Or are you downloading via smoke signals?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,341

    Default

    I was under the impression Lithuania had very fast internet? Wikipedia says you have the 2nd fastest down pipe and the fastest up pipe.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    That still makes a 6 or 8 core run full out and compete with your vacuum cleaner to see what is louder. Enjoy your movie... if you can actually hear it.

    Also for... buffering? First off... who buffers? Download the damned thing. You can download an entire movie in considerably less time than that. Or are you downloading via smoke signals?
    That is only true if you have poor ventilation or poor fans.

    Downloading takes even longer than buffering.

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    I was under the impression Lithuania had very fast internet? Wikipedia says you have the 2nd fastest down pipe and the fastest up pipe.
    Most have. I don't. The thing is that it's very dependent on the location. In the building I live in, there are connections to two ISPs. One of the ISPs provides only cable internet, and no fibre, because they can't get their cable installed for a number of reasons (possibly having to do with the other ISP). Meanwhile the other ISP technically provides fibre internet to the building, but for some unknown reason the cable doesn't reach my flat. So I would have to rewire the whole flat for it to be routed here, and that's not worth the effort and/or cost.

    Once I move somewhere else, though, chances are I'll be able to use fibre internet (again; my last flat had it). Then I'll be able to self-host servers and all. But until then...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    ...
    Downloading takes even longer than buffering.
    ...
    Ok, well, to be fair, a given video will take the same amount of time to download regardless of what you do with it after you download it. I guess if you are writing it to persistent storage, then that will take longer than just leaving it in a buffer, but since writing to storage occurs at the same time as the download is still in progress, and since your bottleneck is the download, chances are you aren't going to see any actual difference in time between writing it to storage or not. On the other hand, if you compare the same video optimized for download and optimized for streaming, assuming equal quality the download version should be a little bit smaller and hence actually take less time downloading.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge View Post
    Ok, well, to be fair, a given video will take the same amount of time to download regardless of what you do with it after you download it. I guess if you are writing it to persistent storage, then that will take longer than just leaving it in a buffer, but since writing to storage occurs at the same time as the download is still in progress, and since your bottleneck is the download, chances are you aren't going to see any actual difference in time between writing it to storage or not. On the other hand, if you compare the same video optimized for download and optimized for streaming, assuming equal quality the download version should be a little bit smaller and hence actually take less time downloading.
    When buffering, you get to buffer and watch in parallel. When downloading, you download first, and watch after that, so it takes longer. And if I want to watch a video, I typically want to watch it right at that moment, not after half an hour.

    Granted, some videos can be watched while download is in progress. But that basically means buffering, because that way you need to make sure you're downloading everything sequentially. And then you also can't seek.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    When buffering, you get to buffer and watch in parallel. When downloading, you download first, and watch after that, so it takes longer. And if I want to watch a video, I typically want to watch it right at that moment, not after half an hour.

    Granted, some videos can be watched while download is in progress. But that basically means buffering, because that way you need to make sure you're downloading everything sequentially. And then you also can't seek.
    Sorry, looks like I misunderstood you. I interpreted your "downloading takes even longer" assertion too litteraly.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    That is only true if you have poor ventilation or poor fans.
    PC with CPU with high TDP or many cores can sound like vacuum cleaner or CPU can overheat.
    Last edited by JS987; 10-17-2013 at 06:02 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    That means real trouble for netbooks and older tablets without hardware H265 support if the format becomes popular for web video.
    People with 386 CPUs cannot play mp3.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    90

    Default

    I'm waiting for the encoder support.
    I want to see how much disk space can be saved with this for archival purposes.

Posting Permissions

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