31–40 of 120 posts
It's ffmpeg all the way down. I can't imagine what the internet would be if there weren't such a marvelous piece of software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can tell, what you're missing is the massive ease-of-use and approachability, especially for non-technical users, of a web-based graphical "convert X to Y" interface vs. facing command line ffmpeg, which they probably haven't heard of.
There are already GUIs for ffmeg and most image editing applications can save in multiple formats so its still not clear to me what this adds
How is this different from image/graphics magick, ffmpeg, oiiotool etc? Or: what am I missing here, why is this on the front page?
It's ffmpeg all the way down. I can't imagine what the internet would be if there weren't such a marvelous piece of software.
It is one of the wonders of the world. Such a gift that we get to use it for free, from end users like us to large corporations like Netflix.
Why do such things need to be hosted at all? I've got a few file converter apps on my laptop. They're faster and better and you don't need to stream the data off somewhere just to process and stream back, which is silly.
If you're happy using your existing apps, you probably wouldn't see much use in this. But I can definitely see how the UI/UX would appeal to a lot of people.
It's a great UI to ffmpeg - I wish they gave it some credit on their landing page.
Edit: Actually, using a library via a package manager would likely be considered "linking" and not a Derivative Work, so I don't think even Apache's clause would apply in many cases.
It's ffmpeg all the way down. I can't imagine what the internet would be if there weren't such a marvelous piece of software.
That project has an interactive playground that essentially describes and demonstrates how it works: https://ffmpegwasm.netlify.app/playground
This also means that despite being a locally hosted ffmpeg frontend, it's still slower than native ffmpeg and bound to WASM limits like file size (still a generous 2GB for images and audio, but not as viable for big video conversions).
Still weird that this project doesn't seem to acknowledge that anywhere.
It's a great UI to ffmpeg - I wish they gave it some credit on their landing page.
"The vertd project is a server wrapper for FFmpeg [...]"
How is this different from image/graphics magick, ffmpeg, oiiotool etc? Or: what am I missing here, why is this on the front page?