Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

npmjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#201

Post by metadope »

naikrovek wrote: post #156

Small English nitpick: > ff slow down video.mp4 by 2x How do you slow something down by 2x? x is a multiplier. 2 is a number greater than 1. Multiplying by a number greater than 1 makes the result LARGER. If you’re talking about “stretch movie duration to 2x”, say that instead . Saying something is 2x smaller or 2x shorter or 2x cheaper doesn’t make sense. 2x what? What is the unit of “cheap” or “short” or “small”? H…

> Small English nitpick:

> 2x? x is a multiplier.

Translation of English is often problematic because of the multiple valid interpretations of simple words, and concepts that have many synonyms.

The solution here is to use arithmetic to supercede English. It may then become apparent that what is meant is x as a denominator.

Translate x into 'times', and then think of 'times' not as strictly multiplication but instead as an iteration (which, after all, is what multiplication is), and that might get you closer to what is meant, which is a standard arithmetic inversion of multiplication to division.

> Saying something is 2x smaller or 2x shorter or 2x cheaper doesn’t make sense

It does, if you do the inversion. Something 2 times smaller is half (1/2) as big.

Two ways of saying the same thing is half the fun of learning English!

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#203

Post by CamperBob2 »

koyote wrote: post #150
qbow883 wrote: post #57

Days since last ffmpeg CLI wrapper: 0 It's incredible what lengths people go to to avoid memorizing basic ffmpeg usage. It's really not that hard, and the (F.) manual explains the basic concepts fairly well. Now, granted, ffmpeg's defaults (reencoding by default and only keeping one stream of each type unless otherwise specified) aren't great, which can create some footguns, but as long as you remember to pass `-c co…

You're getting a lot of flak due to how you started off your comment, but I mostly agree with you. In my opinion there are two kinds of users: 1. Users who use FFmpeg regularly enough to know/understand the parameters. 2. Users who only use FFmpeg once in a while to do something specific. This wrapper is superfluous for users in group number 1. But group number 2 does not really get much out of it either, for the rea…

Usually when AI hallucinates an option that doesn't exist, the option really should exist. So then I tell it to add it.

Then, several days later, I crawl away from fighting robots in a rabbit hole, and finally get around to doing what I set out to do in the first place....

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#205

Post by ranger_danger »

there_is_try wrote: post #105
Tempest1981 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really not that hard, I've learned not to say this. Different things are easy/hard for each of us. Reminds me of a discussion where someone argued, "why don't all the poor/homeless people just go get good jobs?" Edit: I know your comment was meant to inspire/motivate us to try harder. Maybe it's easier than it appears.

Empathy is really not that hard.

With so many people lacking emotional intelligence, I would strongly disagree with you.

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#206

Post by ranger_danger »

ubercow13 wrote: post #140
qbow883 wrote: post #57

Days since last ffmpeg CLI wrapper: 0 It's incredible what lengths people go to to avoid memorizing basic ffmpeg usage. It's really not that hard, and the (F.) manual explains the basic concepts fairly well. Now, granted, ffmpeg's defaults (reencoding by default and only keeping one stream of each type unless otherwise specified) aren't great, which can create some footguns, but as long as you remember to pass `-c co…

Totally disagree, I have a wrapper I wrote myself for converting things, often for sharing the odd little clip online or such. It produces a complex command that is not easy to just type out, that does multiple things to maximise compatibility like - making sure pixel are square while resizing if the video resolution is too large ("scale=w=if(gt(iw*sar\\,ih)\\,min(ceil(iw*sar/2)*2\\,{})\\,ceil(iw*sar*min(ih\\,{})/ih/…

And even if you memorized all that, another task that IMO should be simple, you probably haven't also memorized yourself, such as inserting or extracting a thumbnail from a container.

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#207

Post by Forgeties79 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #189
christstopit wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are overthinking this way too much, to the point that it is sounding like you are purposefully creating out-of-context problems to justify your way too long rant. As the kids these days say: just take the L, man.

I completely disagree. The rant is a problem but the complaint about reencoding is quite valid.

It’s a classic “forest for the trees” scenario. The use case 90% of the time for these tools is “I have a format problem and I need something to solve it quickly.” Rarely do they care if it’s lossless or not.

Anyone who knows what lossless vs. lossy means and when it matters knows what tools to look for and what the limitations of each tool are.

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#208

Post by Dylan16807 »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #207
Dylan16807 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. The rant is a problem but the complaint about reencoding is quite valid.

It’s a classic “forest for the trees” scenario. The use case 90% of the time for these tools is “I have a format problem and I need something to solve it quickly.” Rarely do they care if it’s lossless or not. Anyone who knows what lossless vs. lossy means and when it matters knows what tools to look for and what the limitations of each tool are.

The average person can easily understand "the copy looks worse when it could look identical". The issue is not even thinking to check.

And I bet most of them do care, even if it's not caring a lot.

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#209

Post by naikrovek »

metadope wrote: post #201
naikrovek wrote: post #156

Small English nitpick: > ff slow down video.mp4 by 2x How do you slow something down by 2x? x is a multiplier. 2 is a number greater than 1. Multiplying by a number greater than 1 makes the result LARGER. If you’re talking about “stretch movie duration to 2x”, say that instead . Saying something is 2x smaller or 2x shorter or 2x cheaper doesn’t make sense. 2x what? What is the unit of “cheap” or “short” or “small”? H…

> Small English nitpick: > 2x? x is a multiplier. Translation of English is often problematic because of the multiple valid interpretations of simple words, and concepts that have many synonyms. The solution here is to use arithmetic to supercede English. It may then become apparent that what is meant is x as a denominator. Translate x into 'times', and then think of 'times' not as strictly multiplication but instead…

“x” is a multiplier in your first example, and an inversion in your second?

Pick one.

Or just phrase things correctly to begin with.

Re: Show HN: Ez FFmpeg – Video editing in plain English

#210

Post by account42 »

e-Minguez wrote: post #73
qbow883 wrote: post #57

Days since last ffmpeg CLI wrapper: 0 It's incredible what lengths people go to to avoid memorizing basic ffmpeg usage. It's really not that hard, and the (F.) manual explains the basic concepts fairly well. Now, granted, ffmpeg's defaults (reencoding by default and only keeping one stream of each type unless otherwise specified) aren't great, which can create some footguns, but as long as you remember to pass `-c co…

If you use it from time to time it would be very challenging to remember the million of different options ffmpeg has.

You only need to remember the few options you actually need more than once.
Post reply on HN