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

FFmpeg 3.0 released

ffmpeg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#11

Post by ux »

Aissen wrote: post #3

This screams for proper release notes. The official ones are pretty light ( http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi/ffmpeg.git/?p=ffmpeg.git;... ), and refer to the Changelog ( http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi/ffmpeg.git/?p=ffmpeg.git;... ) which is quite terse. Phoronix did some reformatting of the changelog, it's a bit easier to read: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=FFmpeg-3.... But honestly this ty…

Yeah, sorry about that. It was indeed done in a hurry.

I think the main highlights are:

- The API/ABI break (implied by the major bump)

- The many improvements in the native AAC encoder making it the recommended one (libaacplus and libvo-aacenc are removed)

- A ton of filters were added

- Many ASM optimizations that weren't mentioned in the Changelog (it will take a while to make highlights on those, I don't remember them)

Hopefully a proper news will be posted soon. Sorry again.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#12

Post by nakodari »

At Jumpshare, we use FFmpeg for screen recording. We noticed that the previous version of FFmpeg was not DPI aware. So we went ahead and fixed it. Now FFmpeg will show correct mouse location in hdpi screens. Unfortunately, it seems FFmpeg 3.0 does not ship with this fix. Nevertheless, we're happy to contribute to this open source project.

Here's the fix if anyone is interested: https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/00c73c475e3d2d7049ee...

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#14

Post by [deleted] »

Aissen wrote: post #3

This screams for proper release notes. The official ones are pretty light ( http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi/ffmpeg.git/?p=ffmpeg.git;... ), and refer to the Changelog ( http://git.videolan.org/gitweb.cgi/ffmpeg.git/?p=ffmpeg.git;... ) which is quite terse. Phoronix did some reformatting of the changelog, it's a bit easier to read: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=FFmpeg-3.... But honestly this ty…

[deleted]

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#15

Post by kuschku »

bru wrote: post #10
danso wrote: post #4

I know this has been a constant question (in the lines of "Should I go Python 2.x or 3.x?")...but I feel the need to ask it again on the event of a major point release for ffmpeg...but how are things, pragmatically-speaking, in terms of libav vs ffmpeg? I had thought that libav was the new way a few years ago and have more or less been using it on OS X...but now I see that Debian recently switched back to ffmpeg [1].…

> libav [...] promoted as a concerted effort to create a better API True, but that was biased and unfair. Some developers leveraged their Debian influence to get Debian to switch from ffmpeg to libav, but the technical merits were debatable. In the end, they came back to ffmpeg. This is mostly a political issue. Software-wise AFAIK ffmpeg has been integrating many changes from libav but the opposite is not true, maki…

Software-wise, ffmpeg is the more feature complete solution, obviously. But if you want a morally and ethically okay solution, with a cleaner codebase (but also NIH syndrome), libav might be the better solution.

The same people who use free software for moral and ethical reasons would also choose libav.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#16

Post by Bootvis »

kuschku wrote: post #15
bru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> libav [...] promoted as a concerted effort to create a better API True, but that was biased and unfair. Some developers leveraged their Debian influence to get Debian to switch from ffmpeg to libav, but the technical merits were debatable. In the end, they came back to ffmpeg. This is mostly a political issue. Software-wise AFAIK ffmpeg has been integrating many changes from libav but the opposite is not true, maki…

Software-wise, ffmpeg is the more feature complete solution, obviously. But if you want a morally and ethically okay solution, with a cleaner codebase (but also NIH syndrome), libav might be the better solution. The same people who use free software for moral and ethical reasons would also choose libav.

That's quite a claim, can you elaborate on that a bit? I remember reading some of the controversy but I don't remember the ffmpeg guys to be very bad.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#17

Post by gmfawcett »

kuschku wrote: post #15
bru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> libav [...] promoted as a concerted effort to create a better API True, but that was biased and unfair. Some developers leveraged their Debian influence to get Debian to switch from ffmpeg to libav, but the technical merits were debatable. In the end, they came back to ffmpeg. This is mostly a political issue. Software-wise AFAIK ffmpeg has been integrating many changes from libav but the opposite is not true, maki…

Software-wise, ffmpeg is the more feature complete solution, obviously. But if you want a morally and ethically okay solution, with a cleaner codebase (but also NIH syndrome), libav might be the better solution. The same people who use free software for moral and ethical reasons would also choose libav.

"Morally and ethically okay" -- what do you mean by that? and why doesn't ffmpeg meet the same standard, in your opinion?

I've read summaries of the libav fork, but I don't recall anyone raising issues of morality.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#18

Post by danso »

kuschku wrote: post #15
bru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> libav [...] promoted as a concerted effort to create a better API True, but that was biased and unfair. Some developers leveraged their Debian influence to get Debian to switch from ffmpeg to libav, but the technical merits were debatable. In the end, they came back to ffmpeg. This is mostly a political issue. Software-wise AFAIK ffmpeg has been integrating many changes from libav but the opposite is not true, maki…

Software-wise, ffmpeg is the more feature complete solution, obviously. But if you want a morally and ethically okay solution, with a cleaner codebase (but also NIH syndrome), libav might be the better solution. The same people who use free software for moral and ethical reasons would also choose libav.

Sorry, what's wrong with using free software for moral and ethical reasons? I often do so because I don't feel like paying nor stealing commercial software. However, being so dependent on OSS has made me appreciate it and want to support it in what ways I can -- call it a moral imperative. Besides contributing bug reports and patches, I sometimes like using new libraries (or edge versions of existing software) if the creator, working freely, is trying to move the ball forward...having users who can provide feedback is a sort of moral support.

In the case of libav...as an admitted casual, I'm thankful that ffmpeg exists, even if its API confuses me...I'm grateful enough to think that the status quo is just fine, whether I can rationalize it or not. However, I do find it admirable that some people (ostensibly) wanted to make what they think were forward-thinking changes, including doing the kind of cleanup that is generally under-appreciated and under-prioritized in all software.

So if they're promising a transparent, interoperable interface...sure, I'll give it a try, and it will be for "moral" reasons in the sense of moral support. I've done the same with MariaDB (over MySQL) and haven't regretted it.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#19

Post by Exuma »

djm_ wrote: post #5

Thanks to all the FFmpeg contributors! Fantastic piece of software. On a project I was recently on recently we started hitting the per-region concurrent transcode limits on Amazon's Elastic Transcoder. [1] Instead of sharding over pipelines or accounts we set up a pipeline with FFMPEG + Lambda functions and it performed fantastically (within the free tier even). It was incredibly simple to write the functions and has…

Wow... I would truly appreciate if you could share a bit more about your specific setup. I found myself working on a new project yesterday that I was really really excited about, until I saw the costs to transcode video.

How does doing all this in-house compare price wise (say, per minute), compared to using elastic transcoder?

Edit: The ultimate lowest cost I can find is $0.0125-0.015

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#20

Post by JimDabell »

imaginenore wrote: post #2

Among new things: - Common Encryption (CENC) MP4 encoding and decoding support. - New filters: extrastereo, OCR, alimiter, stereowiden, stereotools, rubberband, tremolo, agate, chromakey, maskedmerge, displace, selectivecolor, zscale, shuffleframes, vibrato, realtime, compensationdelay, acompressor, apulsator, sidechaingate, aemphasis, virtual binaural acoustics, showspectrumpic, afftfilt, convolution, swaprect, and…

Chromakey was introduced in 2.8.x.
Post reply on HN