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

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#71

Post by reality_czech »

kuschku wrote: post #66
2trill2spill wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me get this straight, your mad because Fabrice Bellard, the person who started ffmpeg, asserted his trademark on the libav folks because their fork initially used the name ffmpeg? Seeing as your the maintainer for QuasselDroid, How would you like it if a group of contributors wanted to take the project in a different direction then you, so they fork it, call their fork QuasselDroid, and then say your branch is im…

Actually, with quasseldroid we had the same situation as with ffmpeg/libav – but I’m the one who forked it. Just in our case the people maintaining the (now dead) original repo decided to give up maintainership to me. (And so we merged everything back). Also, in your example, I would have no issue. If another group decided to fork and improve the project, and have more development going on than me, I’d end up just co…

With all due respect, you are not answering the question that the parent poster asked. If someone created a hostile fork of QuassalDroid, and made decisions that you disagreed with, I doubt you would be OK with them using the same name for the project. The right to fork is fundamental in open source, but there is no right to present someone else's work as your own, or to confuse the general public about which version of a software package they are downloading. People should be able to decide for themselves which software to download, not be fooled by someone passing off something different as the same thing. That's why trademarks exist. Enforcing trademarks is not bad or wrong.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#72

Post by jdp »

cosmie wrote: post #69
djm_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure: you likely don't want to be dealing with large files on Lambda. Why? * The maximum timeout window for a function invocation is 300 seconds * The maximum available temp disk space per instance is 500MB * Memory is maxed at 1.5GB In the function invocation time window you need to: * retrieve the file (to memory or disk) * transcode the file (outputting to memory or disk) * upload the file (as the disk is not pers…

I don't know much about video transcoding, but if FFMPEG can utilize streams it's easy to work around the lambda size constraints. You can process several GBs in the 5 minute window by piping your S3 download stream through your transformation steps then directly into an S3 upload stream. Nothing ever persists to disk, so your only worry if anything is managing your stream buffers so you don't run out of memory. As l…

ffmpeg can utilize streams, in both input and output. The trouble comes from different codecs and containers, especially on output. Some formats aren't append-only—the prime example being MP4 + h.264—and so ffmpeg needs to be able to write to a seekable output device, ruling out streaming output in those cases.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#73

Post by GigabyteCoin »

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].…

When in doubt about which open source project to go with, I typically refer to Google trends.

For example, check out this graph between ffmpeg and libav in terms of Google searches. [0]

The entire world can be wrong, but it's rare.

[0] https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=libav%2C%20ffmpeg

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#74

Post by abrookewood »

iampims wrote: post #70
Rezo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you try simply asking AWS to raise the limit? It even suggests so on your linked page. In my experience, every limit is immediately relaxed when requested; number of VPCs (I see people do horrible things to work around this all the time! Just ask!), EC2s / region, SES limits (need to send 10 million emails / day? No problem!), API Gateways / account, total ASGs... I believe all of these are there to keep you from…

There are some limits they can't/don't want to increase.

I'm yet to find a limit that they won't adjust - what ones are you referring to?

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#75

Post by AndyKelley »

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].…

Pragmatically speaking, ffmpeg is a clear winner. See this article for reasons why: https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/libav-provider/ffmpeg

In summary:

* ffmpeg has merged most of what libav has done.

* Most distributions are using ffmpeg, including Debian now.

* ffmpeg has more contributor activity.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#76

Post by exadeci »

nakodari wrote: post #12

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…

First time that I hear about your service and it seems like a copy of Dropbox but with way more features. (the interface)

Just a suggestion: Jumpshare Plus link should either be at the top or renamed "Pricing" because you don't see it directly and the usual ctrl+f of pricing gives nothing. Plus your pricing is nothing to be ashamed of :)

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#77

Post by cthalupa »

abrookewood wrote: post #74
iampims wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some limits they can't/don't want to increase.

I'm yet to find a limit that they won't adjust - what ones are you referring to?

S3 buckets are one I've seen. But there's not really a reason to have 100 s3 buckets, much less more than that.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#78

Post by nakodari »

exadeci wrote: post #76
nakodari wrote: post #12

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…

First time that I hear about your service and it seems like a copy of Dropbox but with way more features. (the interface) Just a suggestion: Jumpshare Plus link should either be at the top or renamed "Pricing" because you don't see it directly and the usual ctrl+f of pricing gives nothing. Plus your pricing is nothing to be ashamed of :)

Hi, thank you for the feedback and suggestions. We will make sure to include the pricing in the new homepage we're working on. :)

By the way, we're more about quick sharing than syncing. We will be overhauling our homepage to make that clearer. Here's the app if you're using a Mac (Windows app is coming soon): https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/jumpshare/id889922906

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#79

Post by kuschku »

reality_czech wrote: post #71
kuschku wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, with quasseldroid we had the same situation as with ffmpeg/libav – but I’m the one who forked it. Just in our case the people maintaining the (now dead) original repo decided to give up maintainership to me. (And so we merged everything back). Also, in your example, I would have no issue. If another group decided to fork and improve the project, and have more development going on than me, I’d end up just co…

With all due respect, you are not answering the question that the parent poster asked. If someone created a hostile fork of QuassalDroid, and made decisions that you disagreed with, I doubt you would be OK with them using the same name for the project. The right to fork is fundamental in open source, but there is no right to present someone else's work as your own, or to confuse the general public about which version…

The fork would only be "hostile" because I disagreed with it.

And why should I have any more say on this than the other contributors?

This is open development, the very idea is that people are replaced all the time.

Re: FFmpeg 3.0 released

#80

Post by krullie »

theoh wrote: post #52
krullie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the list given by @imaginenore the major one for me is CineformHD support. We work on a lot of VR stuff and there are quite some GoPro users out there that generate material in this codec. Not having to transcode to an intermediate is nice. Also hardware acceleration is always good to have.

FYI, the phrase "quite some users" is not uncommon among (continental european?) non-native speakers of English, but it's not correct. "In the British National Corpus, for example, most examples of quite some are "quite some time", others are "quite some distance". If you replace "quite some" with "a considerable", the meaning should be clear. If the sentence does not make sense when you do that, it's likely that "qu…

Thanks theoh. Dutchie here. Always nice to learn something new about a foreign language.
Post reply on HN