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

FFmpeg 6.0

ffmpeg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 210 posts

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#131

Post by FranOntanaya »

gyan wrote: post #2

Changelog: * Radiance HDR image support * ddagrab (Desktop Duplication) video capture filter * ffmpeg -shortest_buf_duration option * ffmpeg now requires threading to be built * ffmpeg now runs every muxer in a separate thread * Add new mode to cropdetect filter to detect crop-area based on motion vectors and edges * VAAPI decoding and encoding for 10/12bit 422, 10/12bit 444 HEVC and VP9 * WBMP (Wireless Application…

Nostalgia moment with the CrystalHD decoder deprecation. That came along the Intel Atom netbooks, one of the few ways we had to bump a bit their austere performance.

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#132

Post by nix23 »

deafpolygon wrote: post #71
sirsinsalot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fabrice is superhuman for sure, but in 20 years the urban legend will go like ... Fabrice Bellard once read all of TAOCP in 20 minutes before being absorbed into his own AI and is now ascended in the ethereal ethernet silently fixing bugs in your code. Blessed be the bits.

Chuck Norris once opened Windows and created the Macintosh.

Xerox...it was xerox for both.

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#133

Post by bsenftner »

cm2187 wrote: post #81
exhilaration wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mostly looks like they're adding support for new codecs, there's only 4 new options in there, which seems rather paltry for a dot zero version release. Should we consider ffmpeg feature complete?

I am still using 4.2. Does it make any difference if all I care about is h264 and hevc?

At a prior job we pinned to 4.2.3 because after that version an internal change massively impacted high frame rates. With a 1080p mp4 file on disk, and that disc being an ssd, version 4.2.3 delivers 700-800 frames per second, while all the versions after that 4.2.3 release - no other app or library changes - that same file may reach 300 fps. I spent some time trying to find the cause of that 50% cut in efficiency, but never found enough time.

Curious to try this version.

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#134

Post by thrdbndndn »

izacus wrote: post #129
jeroenhd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to know why? Is this a hardware decode limitation perhaps, or a bug in the standard decoder?

YUV420p is the only pixel format that all H.264 compatible decoders MUST support. Other formats are optional. In practice that means that most hardware decoders (not just iPhones, also other phones, TVs, older PC GPUs) won't be able to decode YUV 4:2:2 or YUV 4:4:4 videos. It's kinda annoying, since YUV420 really messes up red text in screen captures for example. You need this parameter to force ffmpeg to convert the…

>since YUV420 really messes up red text in screen captures for example

Is there an detailed explanation why red is especially bad after chroma subsampling? Have been wondering about this for awhile.

I assume it's because red has low brightness/luminance (no idea if correct or not)?

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#135

Post by c0nsumer »

Do any of you know if this has Dolby AC-4 support? Ticket 8349 [1] has been open for years to add this, but it's not there yet. This would be very nice so we can watch ATSC 3.0 OTA broadcasts via FFmpeg-based things like Plex.

(Currently if one uses something like a SiliconDust HDHomeRun, viewing an ATSC 3.0 stream requires using their app/player, which uses a SiliconDust cloud service to do the decoding. It'd be really nice to have a not-network-dependent way to view/hear OTA broadcasts.)

[1] https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/8349

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#136

Post by AlexeyParamonov »

zweifuss wrote: post #98
AlexeyParamonov wrote: post #80

Is it possible to add a label or a watermark on top of your video without re-encoding using ffmpeg?

If you use a subtitle (or similar) as a watermark, it can be easily removed. So why should you watermark at all? So the answer is probably no.

Well, I am making a live Youtube stream with audio and wanted to add an album cover on top for the track when it is playing.

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#137

Post by AlexeyParamonov »

pjc50 wrote: post #99
AlexeyParamonov wrote: post #80

Is it possible to add a label or a watermark on top of your video without re-encoding using ffmpeg?

I don't believe that's possible with any tool since you're changing the actual video content?

I know some services do this somehow, so I was thinking maybe there is a way in ffmpeg.

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#138

Post by pjc50 »

AlexeyParamonov wrote: post #137
pjc50 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that's possible with any tool since you're changing the actual video content?

I know some services do this somehow, so I was thinking maybe there is a way in ffmpeg.

Hmm. Example of such a service? Wonder if we can reverse engineer it.

Re: FFmpeg 6.0

#139

Post by surteen »

imwillofficial wrote: post #85
sirsinsalot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fabrice is superhuman for sure, but in 20 years the urban legend will go like ... Fabrice Bellard once read all of TAOCP in 20 minutes before being absorbed into his own AI and is now ascended in the ethereal ethernet silently fixing bugs in your code. Blessed be the bits.

Blessed be His bits. Amen.

Under His vi
Post reply on HN