Slashdot Mirror


FFmpeg Finally Releases Long-Awaited Version 0.5

An anonymous reader writes "After many years of release-free development, FFmpeg, the most widely used audio and video codec library, has finally returned to a regular release schedule with the long-awaited version 0.5. While the list of changes is far too long to list here, some high-profile improvements include the reverse-engineering of all Real video formats, WMV9/VC-1 support, AAC decoding, and of course vast performance improvements across the board. To commemorate the 'lively' discussions predating the release, 0.5 is codenamed 'half-way to world domination A.K.A. the belligerent blue bike shed.' The new version can be downloaded from the official website." As another reader points out, FFmpeg is what makes some open source multimedia apps (like MPlayer, Xine, VLC and Kdenlive) so versatile.

176 comments

  1. M!! by xtracto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the reverse-engineering of all Real video formats,

    Sweet! does that mean that we are going to be able to play rmvb in the Wii soon?

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:M!! by Vitani · · Score: 1

      Wii uses ffmpeg??!

    2. Re:M!! by rallymatte · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wii uses ffmpeg??!

      If you're running Linux on it probably could.
      WiiLi

    3. Re:M!! by domatic · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Will has several ports of mplayer available. The version called MPlayer CE is the most actively developed.

      http://www.wiibrew.org/wiki/MPlayer_CE

      It can be installed by the Homebrew Channel. The downside of the mplayers port is that they has no memory protection so attempting to play files that they can't play can crash the Wii requiring a hard reset. I've done this a number of times and haven't suffered anything evil like bricking the thing.

    4. Re:M!! by Viperlin · · Score: 0

      You Don't need to be running WiiLi there is an mplayer you can put on it if you have your wii hacked, also handles DVD's if you've installed the right libs

    5. Re:M!! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Man, why would you want to?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:M!! by marafa · · Score: 0

      duhhhh!!! its reversed engineered!

      it means we are going to be able to play bvmr in the Wii soon! /me ducks as my karma gets flamed even lower

      --
      _ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
  2. Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'd like to point out that FFmpeg is what makes some open source multimedia apps (like MPlayer, Xine, VLC and Kdenlive) so versatile.

  3. "Regular release schedule" by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is one release after "many years" of nothing a "regular release cycle"? Wouldn't that require, at minimum, two consecutive releases? What if the next release isn't for another 5 years? Unless you're suggesting that is in fact their "regular release" schedule.

    1. Re:"Regular release schedule" by c0rN_g0aT · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think he was trying to point out that previously FFmpeg didn't have any release cycle at all. They wanted everyone to download and compile the latest CVS snapshot and use that. In fact, to get help from the mailing list they usually require that you download source and recompile first. The fact that they have locked in and officially named a release is significant.

    2. Re:"Regular release schedule" by rpmayhem · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are restarting a regular release schedule with 0.5?

    3. Re:"Regular release schedule" by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not "restarting." "Starting." They have never had a release schedule as they do not do releases. OR didn't. Whatever.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    4. Re:"Regular release schedule" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes they did. There were regular snapshot releases of FFMpeg up to around 0.4.9, then they decided making proper releases was too much effort and adopted the policy that only CVS could be considered "current". This is great if you're an FFMpeg developer, but sucks if you're the unlucky SOB who is trying to package the damn thing into a release. Hopefully we'll get back to semi-regular releases and I can stop worrying about trying CVS snapshots daily until I get lucky and one builds, and works.

    5. Re:"Regular release schedule" by iMacGuy · · Score: 1

      When was the last snapshot that didn't build or work?

      --
      Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username :(
    6. Re:"Regular release schedule" by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      Not everyone knows how to compile software.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
  4. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by thomasdz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like to point out that FFmpeg is what makes some open source multimedia apps (like MPlayer, Xine, VLC and Kdenlive) so versatile.

    Thanks for that info. I was reading the Slashdot article summary, where it says: "As another reader points out, FFmpeg is what makes some open source multimedia apps (like MPlayer, Xine, VLC and Kdenlive) so versatile." and was hoping that some reader like yourself would point that out because that factoid is only mentioned once in the summary and thus is not obvious to people who only read the scrollbars on their window.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  5. hallelujah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's incredible, I've been using ffmpeg for several years, I never thought they would do it again...
    Nevertheless, I'm a bit surprised, because main ffmpeg developers were always against releases and their constraints...

  6. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Inda · · Score: 5, Funny

    I too would like to point out that FFmpeg is what makes some open source multimedia apps (like MPlayer, Xine, VLC and Kdenlive) so versatile.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  7. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe this was the reader who pointed it out?!

  8. AAC Decoding by tecker · · Score: 1

    Really? AAC Decoding is new?

    I thought that this was already done by many things (VLC for one). Unless these were using an SVN build this really surprises me.

    Also for us not in the know. Is WMV9 what WMP10 and WMP11 use?

    --
    Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
    1. Re:AAC Decoding by Milvuss · · Score: 1

      AAC decoding was possible thru FAAD (GPLv2). Now, FFMPEG can decode it natively with its own LGPL code.

      Not a big difference for a lot of people, but quite important for some third parties using FFMPEG.

    2. Re:AAC Decoding by thaig · · Score: 1

      VLC is built with ffmpeg inside, ffmpeg has had all these features for ages - this news is only new because there's a "release" - not because the features are new in ffmpeg or in the programs that use it.

      --
      This is all just my personal opinion.
    3. Re:AAC Decoding by Lostlander · · Score: 1

      Basically Yes.

    4. Re:AAC Decoding by jmak · · Score: 1

      FFMPEG can also decode E-AC3, i.e. Blu-Ray audio.

    5. Re:AAC Decoding by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the news about it is that instead of using a GPL AAC decoder, they have their own LGPL decoder that is twice as fast as the old decoder. This LGPL AAC decoder is something that has only come about since maybe last year's Google Summer of Code.

    6. Re:AAC Decoding by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      everyone who has ffmpeg in their project uses SVN checkouts.

      That's the only way to use ffmpeg up until now.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:AAC Decoding by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >Unless these were using an SVN build this really surprises me.

      Actually, everyone (vlc, mplayer, xine) was using VCS snapshots.

      >Is WMV9 what WMP10 and WMP11 use?

      Yes. WMV9 is the latest version. It is related to VC-1 and descended from MPEG-4 part 2, and is a competitor to MPEG-4 part 10/AVC/h.264/whatever-you-want-to-call-it

  9. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Alphanos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Presumably he's the reader the editors were referring to...

    --
    Alphanos
  10. At last! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Now I can listen to my Nobuo Uematsu collection!

    1. Re:At last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been fantasizing at Rinoa Heartilly in the little white dress while listening to Eyes on Me, haven't you?

    2. Re:At last! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Rinoa? hmmph, the real hottie of FFVIII is Quistis Trepe: Bookworm, Lady of War (she wields Save the Queen), and all-round classy woman.

      Yep, I'm a Trepie.

  11. Hooray! by clong83 · · Score: 1

    This is good news. Now the bad news is I have many scripts that run ffmpeg, and they might need to be updated... But really, a new stable release is a fantastic thing.

  12. easier blu-ray on linux? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I noticed on the release notes that ffmpeg now supports TrueHD as well as the VC-1 for video, these are both commonly used on blu-ray discs. Maybe we'll get lucky and at least now we'll be able to play our blu-ray disc tracks on linux after we remove all the DRM, & HDCP nonsense. We could sort of do it before but it's a royal pain in the ass: just last night I had to go through about four different media players to blue-ray tracks in trueHD audio and some other weird video format before I found one that could actually play my disc without spewing out error messages every frame. Even then it seemed like the dolby 5.1 sound was messed up -- the voices were coming from behind us and the music from the front.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    1. Re:easier blu-ray on linux? by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 5, Informative

      We're working on it. Just to let you know, while I'm sure an official release will be useable, don't expect the raw source ffmpeg model to go out any time soon. I expect that bug fixes and features will be in the repository very quickly and if you have a need for these things, you should probably compile the code from source. You may also want to keep an eye on the mailing lists
      http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-cvslog/
      http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel/

    2. Re:easier blu-ray on linux? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks for the response. Yeah, I expect it will take a while for the changes to trickle down to the media players, i.e. some of them (VLC IIRC) use their own version of ffmpeg. I am compiling my mplayer from source, because of the VDPAU support. :) In any case, I find it's usually better to get the bleeding edge version with audio and video software since codecs, etc. seem to change much more rapidly than most software.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    3. Re:easier blu-ray on linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but will it play HD content using the GPU. The last time I tried to play HD h.264 video with VLC, it was a horrible experience. 100% CPU usage and a lot of choppiness. Windows Media Player handles HD content fine because it uses the GPU for acceleration, but I couldn't bring myself to use that as my video player.

      I found The KMPlayer and it uses GPU acceleration too (completely smooth 1080p h.264 playback with only about 20% CPU usage on one of my cores), has lots of built in codecs and supports external codecs as well. I've since removed VLC from my system since it has been made obsolete. If this new ffmpeg supports GPU acceleration, I might have to have a look.

    4. Re:easier blu-ray on linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already possible and many of us have already set it up, It isn't easy to initially set up though. Check out this link here, it's a good starting point http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-691564.html

      for blu-ray disks you pretty much need the "hitchhiker" patch set for the kernel, and the patched versions of mplayer and ffmpeg from the berkano overlay (assuming you use gentoo, otherwise you'll need to manually patch, which patches you need will be listed in the ebuild, they're just text script files)

    5. Re:easier blu-ray on linux? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      FYI, flac is usually 20-30% more space-efficient than TrueHD (for 16-bit audio and roughly parity for 24-bit audio).

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:easier blu-ray on linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VC-1 is commonly used on Blu-Ray?

      I thought everyone was using H.264 except for the occasional MPEG-2 diehard.

  13. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by rilles · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks for pointing out that fact. phew.

  14. Returns to Regular Release? by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we say, "Too soon to tell" if this is going to be on a release schedule?

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  15. Almost done? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, 0.5. Does that mean they're half way done?

    1. Re:Almost done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real programmers start counting at 0.

      Don't worry; you'll do just fine with a marketing degree.

    2. Re:Almost done? by BESTouff · · Score: 2, Informative

      The release codename is 'half-way to world domination A.K.A. the belligerent blue bike shed.'. Did you even read the abstract, or just the news title ?

    3. Re:Almost done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real programmers start counting at 0.

      Just like he did.

      Don't worry, you'll do just fine trolling on 4chan.

    4. Re:Almost done? by scriptdaemon · · Score: 0

      half-way to world domination

      So... yeah.

    5. Re:Almost done? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      So, 0.5. Does that mean they're half way done?
      It's probably fair to say that ffmpeg currently supports 50% of all multimedia formats that will ever be invented, so I suppose that's fair.

    6. Re:Almost done? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2, Funny

      >the belligerent blue bike shed

      clearly the bike shed should be red

  16. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by BPPG · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would like to point out that teen pregnancy is an unfortunate problem that is difficult to prevent in our society.

    --
    What's the value of information that you don't know?
  17. Also.... by buanzo · · Score: 1

    Audacity :)

    --
    Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
  18. WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the real sucky thing for us on 64-bit platforms that can't easily use the 32-bit Windows DLL's.

    You can watch the videos but NO SOUND! Even if you do install all the 32-bit stuff, it will still be out of sync with the video.

    Anyway, I'm happy that ffmpeg does anything in the first place. A great piece of software for sure.

    1. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can watch the videos but NO SOUND!

      That's okay, the only things in WMV9 format that are worth watching are porn, and you don't need sound for that.

    2. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A WMA9 decoder is in the FFmpeg-Soc repository. Not sure how well it works, but if it is important to you you can try that...

    3. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, I meant to note that by WMA9 I mean WMAv3 support. WMV9/WMAv3 is what you get if you use the latest Microsoft encoders.

      As the poster above mentions, I don't know why people use that crap. H.264 with AAC seems to be the correct path for the future and is what most people are using these days.

    4. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay, the only things in WMV9 format that are worth watching are porn, and you don't need sound for that.

      Or the sound is just repetitive, so it gets back into sync periodically.

    5. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

      As the poster above mentions, I don't know why people use that crap. H.264 with AAC seems to be the correct path for the future and is what most people are using these days.

      People use "that crap" because they want their customers, for example, be able to watch movies without installing some additional codecs. Yes, H.264 is far superior, but most customers of adult sites, for example, have problems with installing codecs. Or they are afraid of installing anything (and they have a right to be afraid). It's always better to play safe and use the ones, installed with OS by default.

    6. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most customers of adult sites, for example, have problems with installing codecs

      Right, this is tough to do on Windows, one-handed.

    7. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true then they would be using an older WMV or AVI format so it would work on more computers. Using the latest bleeding-edge MS format means anyone wanting to view it will likely have to download and install all sorts of crap, including the latest MS DRM.

      By the way, WMV itself is the least safe format. You can embed all sorts of nefarious things in those stupid containers (including executable code).

      The truth is that whoever made the video is not too smart and is just using whatever is easiest for them.

    8. Re:WMV9 but no WMA9 support by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >WMV9 but no WMA9 support

      ffmpeg should handle wma9 just fine, although they do not support wma pro yet.

      >That's the real sucky thing for us on 64-bit platforms that can't easily use the 32-bit Windows DLL's.

      I used to use those with w32codecs, but now there is just w64codecs, which only has 3 .so files for Real support. I guess modern versions of w32codecs are the same.

  19. That was always the most confusing part too by coryking · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There never was a real build for ffmpeg. Now that they've got a stable release, I wonder when they will start pushing out official builds for various platforms (say, Win32/64)?

    That said, could they actually push out binaries? One of the strange things with ffmpeg is that pretty much everywhere you go, it is compiled different. One system's ffmpeg will have a bunch of codecs installed and another will not. You can never really count on having something like H.264. Hell, I've seen one installation that didn't even have libmp3lame on it! Reminds me of PHP in many ways--so many damn compiler flags that you are pretty much guaranteed every system will be different.

    Is this a legal thing, or a "we dont have a good build process yet" thing?

    1. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hell, I've seen one installation that didn't even have libmp3lame on it!

      You do realize, don't you, that thanks to software patents, it's probably illegal to distribute libmp3lame in the US?

    2. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Unless you can point to an individual, non-commercial user of ffmpeg who has been sued I'm not going to worry much about this. I don't see how the patent holders could even find out that you are using an unlicensed player unless you are stupid enough to ship something commercially.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by squallbsr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But they WILL sue companies that distribute these patented codecs. This is the real root of the problem is that Ubuntu, Fedora, etc, etc cannot distribute a fully functional multimedia system without paying prohibitive royalties.

      It is true that no individual is going to get sued for installing ffmpeg with everything compiled in, it isn't cost effective.

      --
      Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
    4. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well FFMPEG has never been intended for the end use, that's for stuff like FFDSHOW, and VLC.

    5. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by claytonjr · · Score: 1

      I am not a lawyer...but I am certain it is a legal issue. I seriously doubt the developers can "reverse engineer" several commercial/proprietary CODECs and release in binary format.

      The source code may be the closest thing to legit as they can get.

    6. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Most of the time its a legal thing.
      Many distros and packagers don't want to ship builds of FFMPEG (or any other program for that matter) that contain support for various patented codecs. Some distros block MP3, some don't. Some block MPEG video, some don't. Some block Windows Media, some don't. Some ship default versions with stuff blocked but ship separate versions in a special "non free" repo that have the patented codecs turned on.

      Then of course you have Gentoo which (since its built from source) can turn on everything (AFAIK they even ship libdvdread for DVD CSS decoding)

    7. Re:That was always the most confusing part too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from the configure script:

      echo "Configuration options:"
      echo " --enable-gpl allow use of GPL code, the resulting libs"
      echo "and binaries will be under GPL [no]"
      echo " --enable-nonfree allow use of nonfree code, the resulting libs"
      echo "and binaries will be unredistributable [no]"

  20. The question is- by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    When will there be a media player worth a darn on Mac OS X? Playing x264 files on OS X is not an option at this time unless you have an 8-core Mac Pro. 1080p crawls in VLC and Perian, and the CorePlayer for OS X is a joke-no AC-3 support, yet they want $20 for it? Why did they release it as a standalone app instead of a codec package for QuickTime?

    Shitty utter ass, the entire situation is!

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:The question is- by GenP · · Score: 1

      I was unaware there was a Open Source general-case multi-threaded h.264 decoder. What are you using?

    2. Re:The question is- by frogblast · · Score: 1

      Have you tried MPlayer Extended: http://mplayerosx.sttz.ch/

      though i do agree that overall the video player lineup on os x is pretty weak

    3. Re:The question is- by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll throw my recommendation behind this one. Quicktime's interface isn't bad but it's format support is terrible (and for things like WMV files you have to wait for a good amount of time where it does a mini-conversion before it plays). I *normally* find VLC a very usable player on most systems (Linux, Windows) but the Mac OS X version has always been really, really buggy for me. Mplayer Extended gives you essentially the Mplayer backend with a Quicktime-esque interface.

      The only thing that still bugs me on Mplayer Extended (and it's often the same on many players) is that clicking in the tracking bar to a specific location in a video often puts you "somewhere kinda close to that point" rather than EXACTLY to that point. Minor quip though.

      Honestly though, as much as people knock Windows, I've STILL not found anything on any platform that beats Media Player Classic for a simple, no nonsense video player. http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:The question is- by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The latest versions of mplayer will do H.264 much better than they used to.

      I'm not sure if/how it would work on a Mac, but I do know that VDPAU is working very well on Linux, it'll accelerate H.264 decoding if you have an 8xxx or later nVidia chip.

    5. Re:The question is- by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1
      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    6. Re:The question is- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      install perian for quicktime
      its like ffdshow for windows media player

    7. Re:The question is- by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Are the H.264 decoders for Intel chips as bad as the H.264 *en*coders are for PowerPC, then? I just tried to watch a 1080p movie trailer on my dual 1.8 Ghz G5, and while it certainly dropped frames, it looks like a dual 2.5 Ghz PowerMac (and certainly the quad-core version) would probably play it alright.

      This was playing it in Quicktime. In VLC it just flat-out didn't work (I got 5+ seconds of still image between partial frame updates!)

      RealPlayer managed it about the same as Quicktime.

      Of course, that's *if* the CPU is the problem.

      However, neither Quicktime nor RealPlayer redlined my CPU; I still had about 15% idle on each chip. I suspect the video card may have more do to with the skipped frames than raw CPU. (Even fullscreen 1920 x 1200 iTunes visualizer playback is choppy.) I'm running two screens of the original GeForce 5200 64 meg card.

    8. Re:The question is- by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I have already done that. It doesn't work as well - it certainly doesn't enable WMV support which I need. Flip4mac does that but it's a very poor implementation. So far I've just found MPlayer Extended to be the best option in OS X.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:The question is- by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I don't have any problem with h.264 video playback on my MacBook Pro.

      What container are you using?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    10. Re:The question is- by c1t1z3nk41n3 · · Score: 1

      I always thought this had something to do with key frames. I know next to nothing about video encoding but I gather that it's something like an index and having an index that only references every 3 or 4 seconds saves on encoding time or file space or something. I mean there must be some reason encoders don't just set it to .01 second intervals.

    11. Re:The question is- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Media Player Classic is not under active development anymore. There is a fork, MPC Home Cinema, that retains the same interface and adds new features like hardware accelerated AVC and VC-1 decoding on cards that support it. (Geforce 8xxx or newer and any Radeon HD) There are a lot of other improvements as well, see the changelog.

      http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/

      You can also find current development versions of the player on the doom9 forum.
      http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=15

    12. Re:The question is- by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if/how it would work on a Mac, but I do know that VDPAU is working very well on Linux, it'll accelerate H.264 decoding if you have an 8xxx or later nVidia chip.

      You need to be very careful with this, because that statement isn't entirely true. According to Wikipedia, only cards with PureVideo HD 2 or newer support will work with VDPAU, and that excludes the first generation of GeForce 8-series cards.

    13. Re:The question is- by Sancho · · Score: 2, Informative

      In case you're curious....

      I-frames are essentially an entire picture. You could decode an I-frame and have a screenshot from the movie file.

      P-frames (predictive) are essentially stored as the difference between the current frame and the preceding I- or P-frame. You save quite a bit of space this way, as you suspected.

      B-frames are like P-frames, but they're predicted based upon both the previous and next frames.

      The catch is that in order to skip to a specific P- or B-frame, you've got to decode the dependencies, too. So you have to strike a balance--you could be extremely space-efficient if you only ever coded one I-frame, but seeking would suffer horribly. Likewise, you could encode only to I-frames, but you'll be using a lot space. There's nothing strictly wrong with decoding the required frames and then starting playback from the dependent frames, but that can take time. The user would probably prefer seeing a bit more of their film than wondering if their player is broken. Not only that, what if the user tries to skip around several times?

    14. Re:The question is- by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Plex. Not a huge fan of the interface (no mouse support), but it plays things like a dream. 1080p (H264 AAC mkv) plays flawlessly on my CoreDuo Mini (1.66GHz, T2300)

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    15. Re:The question is- by tepples · · Score: 1

      The user would probably prefer seeing a bit more of their film than wondering if their player is broken.

      Unless the user is trying to watch a specific part of the video over and over, and it doesn't start right after a keyframe (aka I-frame). I run into this a lot on YouTube when trying to understand a video completely.

    16. Re:The question is- by amn108 · · Score: 1

      I think seeking is something that can be sacrificed more often than not for the majority of users. Additionally, those who DO seek their streams, mostly care for relative time, and a somewhat imprecise too, which together means no biggie if the player skipped 100 frames instead of 10, i.e. error margin of about 3 seconds, which it would have to if it does not want to decode dependencies. Additionally (again) for those of us who like to seek and pause to see flashing boobies, a dependency-resolving seek option may help.

      Also, I recall that VLC does not process dependencies, it just uses some (poor) error correction when jumping anywhere that is not a keyframe (I-frame in your and MPEG terms) - which results in wrong and funky YUV values and misplaced video blocks. Try seeking some MPEGS with really sparce I-frames and you should be able to notice that "feature". It is not that bad at work.

  21. Most widely used? by slagheap · · Score: 0

    FFmpeg, the most widely used audio and video codec library.

    I think that statement may require some qualifiers, like "open source". I would guess that Windows Media, Quicktime, and several other non-free codec libraries are *vastly* more widely used than ffmpeg.

    --
    First against the wall when the revolution comes
    1. Re:Most widely used? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if FFMPEG is close to those two. I use VLC (which uses FFMPEG) on both of my Macs, and it's installed on my mother's Windows machine for playing video and DVDs.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Most widely used? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I would guess that Windows Media, Quicktime, and several other non-free codec libraries are *vastly* more widely used than ffmpeg.

      Depends. How much does e.g. YouTube count? Also, if you do not just count installed but actually used, I'd guess ffdshow (and thus FFmpeg which it uses) ahead even on Windows systems (obviously this is only a guess).

  22. What about iTMS? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if/how this version can play iTMS-encrypted music and/or videos?

    1. Re:What about iTMS? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Anyone know if/how this version can play iTMS-encrypted music and/or videos?

      No, it won't decrypt/break DRM for you.

      For music - I suggest you just pay the upgrade fee already to get it into iTunes+ format (higher quality, DRM free). All tracks should be DRM-free soon enough. Else, see below.

      For video - you'll have to find a program called "requiem" - the official distirbution site is on Freenet though, so I suggest you grab a copy off a torrent and grab the freenet link contained in the readme file. Just to avoid a malware infested download.

      Once defanged, it's standard AAC and h.264 video easily playable in any compatible player (e.g., mplayer, vlc).

    2. Re:What about iTMS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > No, it won't decrypt/break DRM for you.

      To be pedantic, that is not completely right. It will decrypt ASF/WMV/WMA files, it will not break the DRM though - so you need to get the decryption key from somewhere else (e.g. FreeMe2)

    3. Re:What about iTMS? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      For video - you'll have to find a program called "requiem" - the official distirbution site is on Freenet though, so I suggest you grab a copy off a torrent and grab the freenet link contained in the readme file. Just to avoid a malware infested download.

      Last time I checked, this didn't work with the latest version (8.0.2) of iTunes. You'll need to find iTunes 8.0.1 somewhere and install that. I haven't checked to see if you can downgrade iTunes from 8.0.2 to 8.0.1 and get Requiem working; I have only one video download in my collection, and it was a freebie that could probably be replaced through BitTorrent easily enough. (I had already fixed my music files, though I recently upgraded most of them to iTunes Plus anyway to get higher-bitrate versions.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    4. Re:What about iTMS? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      So if it can do this for Windows Media, why not iTunes? Is it a case of "patches wanted" or does iTunes do it differently (in a way that you cant support decryption-with-a-user-provided-decryption-key?

    5. Re:What about iTMS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No idea, I think it's just that nobody tried so far. Patches would probably be welcome, also for BluRay/HDDVD, but the standards for patch acceptance are rather high. It's easier if the encryption only uses AES, DES or RC4, since the code for that is already there.
      MXF decryption is supported, too, btw.

  23. still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by mczak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Multithreaded h.264 decoding is what I'm missing. Still only slice-based multithreading support, which doesn't work with 95% the content out there, which means you can't get real time decoding of full hd content on A64 X2 (core2 cpus are probably fast enough even with one core, at least the faster ones). ffmpeg-mt branch fixes this, I wonder when this will be merged (still seems to be a bit buggy).

    1. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by the_crowbar · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you have an Nvidia 8400 or better card and driver version 180.xx (I think .37 is newest) you can use the VDPAU api to offload the video decode to your GPU. Just Google it to find the mplayer patches or maybe binaries. There are also some MythTV unofficial builds with it. It can allow a Sempron to easily play high bitrate h.264 video (i.e. BluRay).

      Cheers,
      the_crowbar

      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
    2. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by mczak · · Score: 1

      Right, and chances are intel and amd support something like that (using their own apis...) in the future too. Doesn't help if you have older graphic chip (like rs690 igp) however.

    3. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by Taibhsear · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC The next version of Ubuntu coming out in April (Jaunty) should have VDPAU supported media players and (if you have an nvidia card supporting VDPAU) driver 180.29 as the standard install. (ie, you won't have to compile the experimental mplayer anymore to watch 720p or 1080p files)

    4. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's definitely still buggy. I've played with the ffmpeg-mt branch a few times, but it throws up decoding errors while playing and so on. It's definitely not ready for prime-time, but it is promising.

    5. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Ditto that sentiment. I'm very sorry to tell my OSX/Linux using friends that, no, your brand new $2000 Macbook Pro cannot play this 1080P x264 file because the decoder will only use one core and it's not fast enough to keep up. Unfortunately, until the ffmpeg-mt branch becomes stable and gets merged back in (and now it will be months before that happens) you have to use Windows or wait for http://www.coreavc.com/ to be ported to your platform.

      Even in the face of a preference for open source, just about everyone in the HD community will admit that you either need a really fast rig (C2D/AX2 ~2.4Ghz for 720p, ~3.0ghz for 1080p), some sort of GPU-offloading or a CoreAVC because it can do real multithreading (slice-based is fail). This is going to be very important if Linux based media-centers are going to have any punch in the living room.

      It's a disappointing area for proponents of OSS, to say the least.

    6. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by the_crowbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am actually using Jean-Yves Avenard's Ubuntu repo where he maintains a Myth 0.21 (the current stable version) build with the VDPAU patches. He also has mplayer and the required nvidia drivers. If you're on Ubuntu it is easy to try out the patched mplayer without building your own. http://www.avenard.org/

      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
    7. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Ditto that sentiment. I'm very sorry to tell my OSX/Linux using friends that, no, your brand new $2000 Macbook Pro cannot play this 1080P x264 file because the decoder will only use one core and it's not fast enough to keep up.

      Are you serious? I've never had any problems with decoding 1080p h.264 video on my iMac (white 24"), and I've never heard of anyone else with that problem (admittedly I haven't googled with the intent of finding people with that specific problem, considering all the problems people manage to have I have no doubt that there are those who have somehow managed to have that problem so please don't use google to find a handful of people who happen to have this particular problem just to "prove" that I couldn't possibly be playing 1080p h.264 video on my iMac since there's some idiot out there who has managed to fuck his machine up to the point where it will barely boot, let alone play high-def video).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    8. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      Multithreaded h.264 decoding is what I'm missing. Still only slice-based multithreading support, which doesn't work with 95% the content out there, which means you can't get real time decoding of full hd content on A64 X2...

      That's not true. I have an Athlon X2 4200+ (Socket 939, one of the originals), and it plays 1080p H.264 content without a hitch, and that's without GPU accelerated video decoding.

    9. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by mczak · · Score: 1

      Depends on encoding options really. Baseline profile (I think apple movie trailers use that exclusively) should be fine, but there's no way you're going to decode high profile 1080i50 content on a X2 4200+ with ffmpeg (if it's not slice based). Even in benchmark mode (nosound etc.) of mplayer I was only able to reach something like 70% of realtime with some selected 1080i clips (that was without deinterlacer, 1080p24 might be slightly better but it's not going to be fast enough neither). Oh and that was a 2.6Ghz X2, so faster than yours... You _could_ of course use CoreAVC (it's possible to get it to work in linux media players), which is a bit faster even with single cores and of course pretty much twice as fast with dual cores.

    10. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      I've got a 2 year old MacBook Pro, and it plays High Def trailers absolutely fine (as an aside: Star Trek looks like it'll be an incredibly pretty film).

    11. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I've been playing back 1080p content over a network on my Mac Mini for almost a year. Yeah, the Mini with a 1.83GHz processor and crappy Intel graphics. It's choked on exactly one, particularly high bitrate file. Everything else works great.

      Maybe there's just some crappy playback software out there that's choking? I know Perian has issues with MKV files, and I suspect that Perian+MKV is a common combination with many Mac filesharers.

    12. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      Harsh words and little substance. MBPro 2,2 GHz, nVidia 8600GT. I know how to use computers and I do not fuck them up beyond belief or ability to boot. Nevertheless, while playing h264 in Quicktime, the de facto Swiss army knife codec Perian switches to the ffmpeg single threaded h.264 decoder when it encounters a MKV file with h.264 in it. Therefore it cannot decode 1080p very well, at least high action scenes suffer. Running top I can see 100% CPU usage for the QT process, which indicates one core exhausted and the other idling. I have a test copy of Aeon Flux at 1080p that I do not watch (although maybe I should, it has Charlize Theron in spandex), but test with every Perian release (and VLC etc) to see if things have changed. The software almost invariably starts vomiting and stuttering when shots get busier and vary faster. The clip plays smoothly with CoreAVC on a dual core Sempron at 1,8 GHz. There are zero problems on the Mac with 720p, that is true.

    13. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      It can allow a Sempron to easily play high bitrate h.264 video (i.e. BluRay)

      BluRay uses VC-1, not H.264.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    14. Re:still no multithreaded h.264 decoding by the_crowbar · · Score: 1

      Some BluRay use VC-1. The VDPAU stuff from Nvidia allows for GPU offload of both h.264 and VC-1. The amount of VC-1 offload depends on the specific video chip, but at least they support it.

      Cheers,
      the_crowbar

      --
      Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
  24. FFmpeg in SUPER by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    FFmpeg is extremely powerful and versatile. Those words are, for the newer user, synonymous with difficult and confusing when the program is based on command line or a very simplistic front end. FFmpeg is very fully implimented (along with MEncoder, ffmpeg2theora and RealProducer) in the free audio and video format and parameter conversion front end software SUPER, from erightsoft.com. Free to download and use but not FOSS: small loss since it is, after all, intended for the majority of users who'd have trouble running such as FFmpeg native, those users hardly likely to want the source anyway. There are very few functions of the internal programs not implemented (setting a max output file size is one of the few). SUPER is extremely powerful while having every available function made as obvious as possible (and all have float-over hints), making it also useful as a training device for learning audio and video compression and conversion. The authors of SUPER clearly and repeatedly insist that their program is simply a front end, and that all credit for the power inside their program go to the programs they've built their around, and the authors thereof.

    A minor beef is they require you to use IE with security settings low in order to download it as well as participate in the (very well attended by the authors) chat area. The 5 year span since the last FFmpeg release is a complete surprise to me, a daily user of SUPER, because there's so much more of that program available through the front end than I ever use.

    I purchased DivXPro so I could convert everything to DivX, in order to play it on my DivX capable home DVD player. I found SUPER (with which I run FFmpeg almost exclusively for video) to be so much more powerful, flexible and faster, that I made the comment in the chat area that "SUPER does for free what others can't do for money". They liked that phrase so much that they adopted it as a motto. This is the sole association I have with the folks from erightsoft's SUPER project, just so your sure this is a testimonial, not an advertisement. One other small beef, they won't let you put it up for download elsewhere, even with the best of intentions on the sites with the best reputations. You can only get it from them.

    I'm quite confident that SUPER will make use of the greater power of the new FFmpeg. I'm less confident I and most of the other users who just want to make things go will learn all about them. For those that do want to learn about them, the SUPER front end provides an a priori description of what will happen if you select each.

    Bring it on -- no doubt erightsoft is already working on the new impplementation. In the mean time, check out the current version to find out how powerful FFmpeg already is. I'll bet you'll be surprised.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Have you ever considered going into marketing?

      "Last week I used ffmpeg on the command line, and I broke two of my fingers while trying to covert something to divx. Today, I clicked a button for a GUI frontend to ffmpeg, and like the thousands of other GUIs, it converts stuff to divx."

      "Also, Larry the Lawyer got me $300.000,- from the keyboard manufacturer"

    2. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Last time I checked, SUPER still required admin privileges to run it, not just to install it, and they had some lameass excuse about how that was to prevent it being run on public machines and the like.

      Granted, they can't even figure out the right way to determine whether they have admin privileges, so I suppose it's too much to think they could come up with some way for an admin to do something to allow the program to run without it requiring those privileges at runtime.

      It may be overly paranoid of me to wonder what the real reason for the admin privileges might be, but I think it's still a valid concern.

    3. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPAM?

    4. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have used super a number of times and quite frankly it's the most confusing, badly designed, and downright ugly piece of software I've ever had the misfortune to use. Even the website itself requires you to click though pages and pages of self-important prose and pointless charts before you can actually download the software itself.

      Oh and my favorite feature is the 'auto-update' nag screen which says on my machine 'You are using an OBSOLETE version of SUPER It might induce encoding errors or crash at anytime' on startup.

      Classic!

    5. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Their website doesn't inspire confidence either. Plus, you're better off just learning the FFmpeg command line args - a possibly suspicious GUI isn't worth it.

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    6. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by prozac79 · · Score: 1

      SUPER is extremely powerful while having every available function made as obvious as possible (and all have float-over hints), making it also useful as a training device for learning audio and video compression and conversion.

      So true. I just finished converting my wedding videos from uncompressed DV to MPEGII and Super was the only application that provided me the options I wanted. I know that it is just a front end, but I got so frustrated with other applications (especially commercial ones) that did not give me the options I wanted. I'm not a big fan of templates that other programs seem to use (like "convert to iPod", "convert to DVD", etc.) because they always leave out one or two important options.

      Super has now earned a prominent spot in my software collection and I hope they integrate the new ffmpeg functionality soon.

      --
      "Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
    7. Re:FFmpeg in SUPER by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      Their website doesn't inspire confidence either. Plus, you're better off just learning the FFmpeg command line args - a possibly suspicious GUI isn't worth it.

      Someone who tried all of FFmpeg's functions through SUPER, who was already familiar with using it via command line, would be able to tell whether there were any problems. They wouldn't resort to an ad hominem oxymoronic straw man such as "possibly suspicious". I wrote my piece with the less technically adept users in mind. Make no mistake that not all that use SUPER are unfamiliar with the programs is directs, yea verily even unto the line of commanding.

      But you're right; their web site is very confusing and restrictive in how you must use it. It irks me constantly. But if you persist and make it into the discussion section, and do have a clear question/problem/suggestion, they do respond. Their several updates per year regularly contain both fixes and improvements, some of them suggested by users.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  25. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I like teen pregnancy in our society

  26. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by neomunk · · Score: 2, Funny

    "This MILF is paedobear approved..."

    That's just damned disturbing.

  27. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Miseph · · Score: 0, Troll

    Easy solution: masturbation. Not as an alternative to sex though, that would never work. The trick is getting them to do it with coat hangers.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  28. Doesn't support Dirac by Burz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WTF? I am supposed to use Theora if I want an unencumbered codec??

    At least VLC supports it directly.

    Incidentally, VLC is not so hot on OS X these days. Instead of using FFmpeg for everything it can, it defers to Quicktime and its plugins for anything it can. Which means that most of the time you will not get an alternative method of decoding with the latest VLC versions; I can play many more files with earlier versions.

    1. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by discord5 · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, VLC is not so hot on OS X these days.

      VLC is not so hot on windows these days either. Since the 0.9 versions it takes too damn long to start up, and I think Qt has something to do with it. For some reason it also stopped working properly on dual monitor setups on windows, and even though there's a workaround it's annoying at best.

      I've reverted back to using a recent version of media player classic and ffdshow. I haven't used 0.9 on OS X yet, but the 0.8 version works pretty well there.

    2. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFmpeg _does_ support Dirac de/encoding through libdirac & libschroedinger!

    3. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I recently came across MPlayer OS X Extended, which is almost as good as VLC is on OS X - unlike the normal mplayer builds. You might want to check it out if you haven't tried it before.

    4. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      In some cases (at least the test cases that I used), Theora looked better for low bitrate (~800kbps) streams than Dirac.

    5. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by MadMoose · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try Movist on OS X, it lets you choose between FFmpeg and QT. And the interface is lovely.

    6. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the dual monitor problem was solved, or at least it was on my machine, with one of the newer builds of VLC. For a few though it did have a lot of problems.

    7. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by eXonyte · · Score: 1

      Not only that, if you let VLC 0.9 on Windows associate itself with video file extensions, it will eradicate Windows's ability to generate video file thumbnails. I had to export registry keys from a fresh Windows install in a VM to repair the damage.

    8. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Instead of using FFmpeg for everything it can, it defers to Quicktime and its plugins for anything it can.

      I see an option under "Input & Codecs" to "Use system codecs if available".

      The default on Windows is unchecked. I don't know if it's different on OS X...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    9. Re:Doesn't support Dirac by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Same experience here - I was using VLC religiously, but having tried Media Player Classic Homecinema and ffdshow I will not be going back any time soon. It's faster, a better range of videos are playable, it uses fewer resources and seems to do much better with media being played from slowish sources (e.g. over wifi, where VLC would screw up massively or do weird things with buffers).

      --
      Read Pynchon.
  29. For end-users, yeah by coryking · · Score: 1

    But there isn't anything like ffmpeg for batch transcoding or even one-off transcoding. A lot of commercial apps even use ffmpeg for transcoding.

    Yeah learning the command line switches are kind of a bitch, but once you do, you will know more about how audio, video and metadata are combined to create "media". That said, there are some good front-ends to ffmpeg--for example MediaCoder, which lets you feel the joy of transcoding.

    1. Re:For end-users, yeah by richlv · · Score: 1

      while i rarely need to transcode media, i have stumbled upon mencoder/ffmpeg manpages, so i decided to look at mediacoder.

      for the record, it seems to be a windows app, and linux as supported platform is mentioned only "Linux with Wine (most features work)".

      --
      Rich
    2. Re:For end-users, yeah by tepples · · Score: 1

      I would guess that Windows Media, Quicktime, and several other non-free codec libraries are *vastly* more widely used than ffmpeg.

      But there isn't anything like ffmpeg for batch transcoding or even one-off transcoding.

      True, transcoding with QuickTime needs the $30 Pro activation. But VirtualDub + AviSynth can transcode anything that Windows Media Player can play. VirtualDub can read MPEG-1 and Video for Windows, and AviSynth supports DirectShow (e.g. WMV, DVD-Video) in any VFW app.

  30. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I would like to point out that 19 year old adult women married women who get pregnant are counted as bing a teen pregnancy in our society.

  31. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Kagura · · Score: 1

    Are you suggesting we try to impregnate coat hangers?

  32. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by rallymatte · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I too would like to point out that this is getting ridiculous.

  33. Halfway there by Late+Adopter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does that mean they're half way done?

    OHHHHHHHH LIving on a prayer!

    Sorry. Had to. It's in my contract. =)

  34. Hope this helps building a better documentation by egghat · · Score: 5, Informative

    ffmpeg is one of the pieces in the open source world that must have the biggest gap between usefulness and usability. Ever seen the man page? Gazillions of options! Some of them can be applied multiple times for input and output. Therefore the order of arguments is significant. Took a while for me to figure that out ...

    --
    -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
    1. Re:Hope this helps building a better documentation by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Informative

      FFMPEG is not something that I think is targeted at the end user to use on the command line. It works great for people like you and I who can figure it out. I can't remember all those options either but I certainly can and have created some shell scripts to build correct ffmpeg commands to produce output for the various media devices I own. Its nice to have this option, as I don't know of any software front end that would let me record directly from my DTV card and convert to the obscure mov+jpegB format used by my SANSA on the fly. Its to exotic a situation and something only a small number of people want to do. That is where the ffmpeg binary is great. It lets people like me to slap what I want together in some shell scripts and not have to break out the C compiler.

      Really the projects value is in libavcodec; which is used in all sorts of things like VLC, mplayer, Myth etc which are much more "usable" and target at the end user.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Hope this helps building a better documentation by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 1

      Well it's used INSIDE a lot of stuff, but the command line version is actually pretty easy to use if you just sit down and learn the basics. See here.

    3. Re:Hope this helps building a better documentation by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "Ever seen the man page? Gazillions of options!"

      Meaning most people won't use it. Good game *g*

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    4. Re:Hope this helps building a better documentation by egghat · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know it's mostly used as a lib but that doesn't mean that nobody should or will use it on the command line.

      The ffmpeg team has built in shortcuts like -target type="ntsc-svcd"that automatically sets all the format options (bitrate, codecs, buffer sizes). So it isn't like they don't care at all.

      In the end I'm sure that the "stable" release will bring better and more consistent tutorials.

      --
      -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
    5. Re:Hope this helps building a better documentation by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      The ffmpeg developers also do a very bad bad thing. They change the options all the time, so if you're say, trying to convert video for PSP use a command line that works for one CVS version will probably not work with another.

  35. YEAH? YOUR POINT? by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    19 year old 'adult' women, married or not- who are pregnant?

    the whole point of tracking teen pregnancy is how disadvantaged the resulting children are likely to be.

    How marginally different is it really just because the mother in question is married.-when it's at age 19..

    yeah.. given the choice- I'd feel far less concern about the birth to a 30 year old single mother than a 19 year old married mother

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  36. AAC revival by Dishwasha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is interesting that his follows closely on the heels of the FAAC 1.28 Release and FAAD2 2.7 Release after an over 2 year haitus. On the other hand, the developer mailing list is quite active considering I get sourceforge-marked [SPAM] between 5-10 times per day.

  37. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by neokushan · · Score: 1

    Where do you think baby coat hangers come from?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  38. Re:Patent Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > I remember something about multimedia patents - open source developers were not allowed to release binaries.
    > Could this be the case?

    Nah, firstly MPlayer, VLC etc. do not really have problems, secondly FFmpeg is located in Switzerland.
    If nobody does a release at all because it is considered too much effort, why do you think they should do binary releases, particularly when the most important parts are the libraries anyway?
    And lastly, binaries for Linux are usually made by the distributions (or someone else providing distribution-specific packages) and for Windows everyone VLC, MPlayer, ... has had trouble finding developers, and thus also in general someone to do the build.

  39. Documentation? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    Have they also improved the documentation? I've looked at using ffmpeg in my own image processing application, but after reading for a while I gave up and now I just use png (you can dump png images of a video stream using mplayer).

    In my opinion, a package with such a central role in the open source multimedia landscape should have exemplary documentation. A professor once told us that it is better to have a well-documented implementation that doesn't work than an undocumented working one, and there is some truth in it.

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  40. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by mspohr · · Score: 1
    Not according to Wikipedia which defines teen pregnancy:

    "Teenage pregnancy is defined as a teenage or underage girl (usually within the ages of 13-17) becoming pregnant. The term in everyday speech usually refers to women who have not reached legal adulthood, which varies across the world, who become pregnant."

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  41. pytivo and subtitles? by HelloKitty · · Score: 1

    wonder if this ffmpeg will let pytivo encode subtitles into the video on the fly... previously it was too slow, and the tivo timed out, canceling the transfer... annoying.

    basically wondering if it'll be faster in this case. :)

    1. Re:pytivo and subtitles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want to hardcode subtitles?

  42. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to point out that 19 year old adult women married women who get pregnant are counted as bing a teen pregnancy in our society.

    but not by pedobear

  43. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by silent_artichoke · · Score: 1

    Where do you think baby coat hangers come from?

    --

    The answer is: sunshine

    Baby hangers come from sunshine? That still doesn't answer why we should try to impregnate coat hangers.

  44. Problems with ffmpeg by dpilot · · Score: 1

    To be perfectly fair, these problems may not be ffmpeg's fault, but as others have mentioned about cryptic command lines, that may be the real problem here.

    MythTV has a companion program, nuvexport, which lets you get stuff out of MythTV and turn it into some other format, such as a DVD. It's really a script that calls other code, such as ffmpeg, under the hood and allows mere command-line mortals to get something done. For regular programming, movies, etc, ffmpeg does a find job. But for exercise videos the motion artifacts almost made my wife sick when she tried to watch them. I ended up using the "transcode" option (and underlying engine) and took the performance hit, but was able to tweak settings to get the motion artifacts under control, and get good exercise DVDs.

    I also wouldn't be surprised that this is a function of nuvexport not exposing the full capability of ffmpeg, but then that's a usability issue.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  45. Binary release? by koro666 · · Score: 1

    Why is there never a stupid binary release?

    I don't want to setup a build environment (which is probably custom, and would possibly require me to go and get ALL the libraries it uses) just to get one final EXE to stick in my "utilities" directory...

  46. What do you want to do tonight? by PRMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pinky: What do you want to do tonight, Brain?

    Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Half-way take over the world!

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  47. Dragon Player by workman161 · · Score: 1

    Ever try Dragon Player? I think it is sufficiently no-nonsense for even the most ADD user.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Player

  48. Fill them with gay porn... by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    ...and mail them to Rush Limbaugh.

    1. Re:Fill them with gay porn... by MoeDumb · · Score: 1

      That scores a 2 ?

      --
      Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
  49. Perhaps by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "As another reader points out, FFmpeg is what makes some open source multimedia apps (like MPlayer, Xine, VLC and Kdenlive) so versatile."

    Perhaps its also what makes them break at the same places...

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Perhaps by iMacGuy · · Score: 1

      Of course, it is. And sometimes people get mad about that, and then they go off and invent gstreamer and its 1000 plugins wrapping different libs of various quality, all of which break at different places. I don't think this is better.

      --
      Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username :(
  50. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Heh. I always thought they were the adult form of paper clips...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  51. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by leromarinvit · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd like to point out that teen pregnancy drops off significantly after age 25.

    --
    Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
  52. puce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >the belligerent blue bike shed

    clearly the bike shed should be red

    Puce damn it!

  53. Does this support Realplayer IVR format? by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

    This is the one thing that has no linux support at this time.

  54. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by kurtmckee · · Score: 1

    The editors gave a hat tip to Anonymous Coward?!

  55. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by treeves · · Score: 1

    I've purchased hangers suitable for hanging coats to be worn by babies at Babies 'R Us, but if you're asking where they were manufactured, well, I'd guess China.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  56. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    That may be the definition that Wikipedia uses. That may be the definition that you use. That IS the definition that I believe should be used. It is not the definition that the various government and do gooder organizations use. Frequently quoted government organizations like the CDC disagree with you, me and Wikipedia.

  57. Re:YEAH? YOUR POINT? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I think you make my point nicely. Even if your not trying to.

  58. Re:YEAH? YOUR POINT? by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

    Being married can be significantly different depending on the spouse's circumstances. Consider young military wives. Many girls who live in military communities go on to marry just out of high school and become mothers at 18 or 19. And it's not necessarily the case that they're marrying E1-E3 ranking service members. Enlisted military personnel don't make a lot, but in certain communities, it's enough to get by. In most though, it's not; however even E1 enlisted personnel have better immediate access to medical and dental care than most middle class families. So, there is a difference between the 17-18 year old teen mother married to a soldier and the stereotypical teen mother.

  59. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by weighn · · Score: 1

    Where do you think baby coat hangers come from?

    --

    The answer is: sunshine

    Baby hangers come from sunshine? That still doesn't answer why we should try to impregnate coat hangers.

    it's been raining all week, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  60. Re:Who cares about FFmpeg? You should. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Age 25 ? Eh ? Surely that's nineteen ?

  61. SUPER is not for subnotebooks by tepples · · Score: 1

    the free audio and video format and parameter conversion front end software SUPER, from erightsoft.com. Free to download and use but not FOSS: small loss since it is, after all, intended for the majority of users who'd have trouble running such as FFmpeg native, those users hardly likely to want the source anyway.

    My cousin tried SUPER on his Acer laptop. He couldn't use it because his laptop's screen is 600 pixels tall, and the OK button ended up out of reach.