91–100 of 120 posts
A "your browser can't decode this codec, try Chrome" nudge would probably spare people the bounce, especially on test imports from their phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have multiple WASM modules communicating with each other (though you would probably need extra interop code?), or statically link them into a single module, the concepts work mostly the same
With a browser plugin I'm sure you could swap out a WASM module on the fly, if said plugin doesn't exist, maybe it should. Would make debugging in a prod URL simpler if you can just load a page with a testing WASM file.
How is the performance? Curious if you've tried using the FFmpeg libraries directly (libav), rather than compiling all of FFMpeg to WASM?
I always end up using running FFmpeg directly since it's faster and more reliable, but I still have some hope for a full functioning browser-based implementation someday.
I also made https://ffmpeg-commander.com a while back to generate commands for FFmpeg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for pointing this out, to be completely honest, I did not consider licensing because the website started as a collection of tools I built to run locally and get into video/audio codecs then I realised it is already a decent collection of tools that other people might want to use too. But I will be making the needed changes to comply fully tonight. At least I comply with this: `Do not misspell FFmpeg (two ca…
You should look into how other companies and tools that use FFMPEG handle this situation. I wonder if you can keep your application itself closed source, but make an open-source adapter that handles the interaction with FFMPEG. I'm not super familiar with open source licensing, and IANAL, so make sure to do your own research :) As an example, I believe Audacity required me to install ffmpeg manually myself, and add i…
Prompting the user to install, or auto-installing FFmpeg separately, rather than bundling the binary. The problem is FFmpeg can be configured in so many ways and the general install binaries are usually LGPL compatible.
Interesting approach—privacy-friendly editing without uploads is compelling. Curious how you handle performance and large files purely in-browser, and what trade-offs there are vs server-based editors.
get this twitter-style LLM reply guy spam off of HN
Wild that privacy became a feature and not the default. Building in this space too and the no uploads needed angle is surprisingly hard to communicate to users who've been trained to expect everything to live in the cloud.
I really need this website if everything works well!