Slashdot Mirror


VLC Passes 3 Billion Downloads (venturebeat.com)

VLC has reached a rare milestone: It has been downloaded more than 3 billion times across various platforms, up from 1 billion downloads in May 2012. VentureBeat reports of the milestone and the new features coming to the media player: VLC today rolled out a minor update -- v3.0.6 -- that adds support for HDR videos in AV1, an emerging video format. But in the coming months, VLC has bigger things planned. First up is a major update to VLC's Android app in about a month, which will introduce support for AirPlay. This will enable Android users to beam video files from their Android phones to the Apple TV. [Jean-Baptiste Kempf, the president and lead developer of VLC's parent company VideoLan] then plans to update the VR app, which will enable native support for VR videos. He said his team reverse-engineered popular VR headsets so that developers no longer need to rely on the SDKs offered by vendors. The app will also receive support for 3D interactions and stereo sound, and add a virtual theater feature.

After that, a major update will be pushed to VLC across all popular platforms. The update, dubbed version 4.0, will offer playback improvements in scaling and video quality of HDR video files. But that's not all. Kempf says he plans to bring VLC to more platforms. He said he is thinking about bringing the media player to Sony's PlayStation 4, Nintendo Switch, and Roku devices.
Kempf participated in Slashdot's interview a couple of years ago, offering some insight into how he's able to keep VLC sustainable (since VideoLan is a nonprofit that runs entirely on donations) and the various projects that were in the works at the time, among other things.

49 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Push ads for a month by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Probably make 5 million... maybe?

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Push ads for a month by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They would make money off me because I fairly regularly download it to see if they have fixed all the copy-pasta features that are crap like their shader effects stuff. Pretty sure they blindly ripped the shader effect support directly out of one of the Media Player Classic forks, and as such it doesnt support any sort of multi-buffer multi-stage shader effects at all... ie, they copy-pasta'd code written over a decade ago which was even considered a primitive place-holder at the time it was written.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Push ads for a month by danomac · · Score: 1

      mpv? Nope.

      Haven't used it since they pulled lirc support. There's no kernel IR replacement for irexec, so it was removed off all my PCs and HTPCs.

  2. Typical slashdot article by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Informative

    no actual link to download vlc in the summary. I didn't see one in the linked article either.

    https://www.videolan.org/vlc/

    There's way more in vlc than just playing videos.

    1. Re:Typical slashdot article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      QQ

      (You can take that either way.)

    2. Re:Typical slashdot article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't read the title of the TFA: 3 Billion Downloads. Everyone already knows where to download it. Especially everyone on Slashdot, no?

    3. Re: Typical slashdot article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nope. Never heard of VLC before this. Guess I spend too much time being producctive, except for this post

    4. Re:Typical slashdot article by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      no actual link to download vlc in the summary.

      Link? Just type VLC into the Windows Store ;-)

    5. Re:Typical slashdot article by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      That wink face means you're being facetious, right?

      --
      /* No Comment */
    6. Re:Typical slashdot article by Shikaku · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Typical slashdot article by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No that wink face is a "I'm being 100% serious while at the same time waiting to see the anti-Windows crowd's heads explode" winkface :-)

      But seriously this is to their credit. VLC is available not only on a wide range of platforms but it's available in a native form for that platform.

      You want an exe? You got it.
      You want a tarball? You got that too.
      dmg for your Mac? Of course.
      dpkg? Yep, rpm? Yep. Okay that's the easy stuff.

      Android store? Yesirree
      Windows store? You betchya.
      Apple App store? You got that too.

      Want it on Linux but don't want to use a package manager? oh SNAP!
      How about a complete sandboxed environment for your video player? DOCKER!
      Or maybe you just feel like a hacker, compile it from source!

  3. Frame by frame? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder when VLC will add support for stepping through videos frame by frame?

    1. Re:Frame by frame? by hviezda14 · · Score: 2

      It already has this feature, just press "E" while on playback.

    2. Re:Frame by frame? by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for smooth seeking back and forth. No matter what hardware or OS, using the timeline to seek back and forth is choppy and clunky.

    3. Re:Frame by frame? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      HA That's easy. Now try to go backwards one frame at a time.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Frame by frame? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I second that. Also, playing 4K videos sucks, at first I thought it was something else but the same videos play perfectly under LightAlloy, while VLC makes a mess of aquares, rectangles and still images on the screen.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Frame by frame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You should ask for your money back.

    6. Re:Frame by frame? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      As your aware... video data is no longer frame by frame, but lots of deltas and other compression and movement tricks.

      True.

      Very difficult to go backwards

      False.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Frame by frame? by war4peace · · Score: 2

      The eternal excuse for sloppy code: but it's free”. Sorry but I am not using software because it's free, I'm using software because it's good. And if it's not good, I am providing feedback, no matter its price.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:Frame by frame? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The internal data isn't frame by frame, but the final display is. Being able to scrub back and forth in the video, with data buffered in it. It would make sense that frames would be buffered in RAM, for rewind and backwards features, Also with modern computers with extremely fast video cards, that can render images faster then your monitors display rate, A full frame is created and saved and displayed in sync with the display to prevent disjointed images in fast moving video. However this may not be in VCL, because this is actually a rather new feature affecting higher end systems.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Frame by frame? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      One of the reason why Movies can fit on DVDs and Blueray disks, and being able to be streamed off a normal home internet connection for over a decade now, is lossy image compression. Traditional analog video sends a stream of signals at different intensities, at a predefined time, there is no buffering and no compression. The old Broadcast station makes the analog signal and the old tv picks it up and interprets it. Now if there is any interference, the screen would probably display static in some parts. Now this is actually a really good method, except for the fact that it needs a large "pipe" to go threw, and cannot interfere with other signals.
      To reproduce this digitally 640*480*40fps*4bytes (24bit color)*15minutes*60seconds/min = 44,236,800,000 bytes of data or 41 Gigs of data for a 15 minute video.
      So what do they do? The data is compressed, so other then showing each frame of data, they will render only what is different in each frame, trim out colors that we cannot see the difference...

      Now this causes seeking to be choppy, because when you go back and forth, it will need to render all the bits and changes that has happened from your previous rendered screen. Keep in mind with analog video such as a VHS when Fast Forwarding or Rewinding while playing, you see the image go all wobbly and out of sync. That is because the analog signal that is being played is at a different time.

      The only technology that can allow you to go back and forth and not be chunky is the Old Movie Film technology. Because it is just zooming a static picture.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Frame by frame? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      A totally unscientific 3-minute test on 2 files suggests a different origin.

      When you click in the playback bar, it's almost impossible to jump a small amount. Testing in a 90-minute video, when you click right next to the playback indicator, there's a dead zone, the smallest available jump is about 2 minutes ahead. And playback hiccups when you use this method; it plays a tiny amount (on the order of 0.2 seconds), then repeats that section before playback becomes smooth.
      This is an interface problem: the dead zone remains the same independent of video length, so in a 30-second video I can jump back/forth by increments of a few seconds.

      When you use the keyboard to navigate, it's a different story. I've got the 'very short jump' set to 3 seconds, and the 'short jump' set to 10 seconds. These work perfectly, every time. Even jumping backwards through the video works well.

    11. Re:Frame by frame? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      It's not in the menus but there's a shortcut for 'Next Frame'.

    12. Re:Frame by frame? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't matter. My computer goes 3 GHz. To me they are more interested in making excuses. My complaints are silly of course, considering the price I paid, and it is the best all around player, but, you know, c'mon... It's not that difficult. This is the very thing a computer should be able to do.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Re:MKV only on V3.0.or earlier. by skoskav · · Score: 2

    Their latest nightly of 4.0 still plays MKV files for me. Where are you getting this info from?

  5. Re: MKV only on V3.0.or earlier. by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    Buzzfeed?

  6. Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Smooth seeking in a keyframe based CODEC is choppy- who'd have thunk it. Low IQ dribblers (the only people who think Slashdot is worth visiting for any reason other than propaganda watching) are always too thick to inform themselves on subjects very well covered on multiple internet resources.

    Most modern CODECs are keyframe based and mono-directional. Editors with smooth seeking re-encode the video clips in a per frame form (essentially each frame becomes its own JPG picture). Either the re-encoded pictures are low rez or the system has to have a LOT of memory. Of course edit operations are applied to the original video data, not the re-encode.

    VLC player is many things, but an editor it is not. It COULD offer an option to re-encode for seeking purposes, but that would take an unpredictable time based on source rez and CODEC. The same dribbler who 'wants' VLC player to smooth seek is not going to want to wait maybe minutes before the video can even play, while a re-encode for seeking purposes is created.

    PS VLC player, unlike most commercial players, has the support of every CODEC as an essential feature. This means UI optimising for the possibility of a given CODEC won't happen. By design. Even a Slashdot dribbler should be able to work out why.

    1. Re:Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chill. Pretty sure he just meant it would be nice to have. Which it would. Nobody demanded VLC have it right now at all costs.

    2. Re:Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by kbg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand why can't you just re-encode only from a previous keyframe to your seek point on the fly? There is no need to reencode the entire file. Just re-encode one keyframe to the next keyframe.

    3. Re:Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by k.a.f. · · Score: 1

      The unpredictable, unacceptable delay *is* for incremental re-encoding. Modern video codecs are stunningly clever predictive miracle engines, and encoding an entire episode of something takes minutes even on good hardware. Re-encoding the last 30 seconds on a mobile device would *still* take too long for a smooth user experience, and the only alternative would be to trade off speed against vastly increased requirements in space... which mobile devices are *also* low on.

    4. Re:Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by kbg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand encoding video is time consuming but we only need to decode here really, which is always faster. You really don't need to re-encode anything you just need to decode a keyframe to keyframe and store the results temporarly. I just checked online for example on H.264 and it seems to have keyframe every 2 to 10 seconds on average, so in reality you only need to decode at max 10 seconds. Now if you don't have the computing power to do this for example on a mobile then obviously you use only key frame seeking but on a PC powerhouse there is no excuse.

    5. Re:Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Time for some real new desktop computer power to help with that math?
      Just keep adding GPU and CPU support and get that smooth user experience that's expected on a new, fast desktop computer.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Ever hear of KEYFRAMES? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not really. All you have to do is construct the frame you're seeking to. If you want to step back a frame, reconstruct from the keyframe again. The number of intermediate frames you keep to minimize the re-computation will be a trade-off between available memory and minimum time to step back.

  7. Re:MKV only on V3.0.or earlier. by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Why on earth do you think they'd drop one of the most popular, open container formats?

  8. Good Open Source by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    VLC is a good open source player. My only gripe is its shitty orange safety cone for an icon. Come on guys, you can do better than that! In all seriousness, VLC is a quality video player that I use both on my desktop and phone.

    1. Re:Good Open Source by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      ...But during the holiday season, it wears a nice Santa hat!

  9. Doubleclick to fullscreen by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 1

    Why can't Apple add that feature to their petty attempt to make a mediaplayer?

  10. Re:US DOD Loves VLC by ledow · · Score: 1

    And the organisation is French.

    Almost like it's an international collaborative software project...

  11. Re:Fix the playback then. by ledow · · Score: 1

    Screenshot it.

    Because I watch all my TV via VLC, broadcast and recorded, all my video library, anything off the net, and anything locally saved or created, plus all the work stuff.

    Literally never had an issue.

  12. Re:should have never installed the new version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    VLC was my 1st real player. But sadly, its randomly defined features make it difficult to take
    seriously beyond the simple playing of flac, mp3, and most video formats and their containers.
    Randomly? Take snapshots, for example, use to include the soft subtitle (if present). Didn't want it,
    just disable the subtitle stream. N.P. Now, it's always w/o the subtitle.

    I think the problem is the reluctance to shore-up existing features, fix bugs, and remain consistent
    with VLC as a tool rather than a toy. I follow its development thread, and it's a cluster-f*** to say
    the least. It has gone so far from its roots - it's not even maintained in / as C code (which is why it
    fails horribly at 4k unless you have a ungodly fast hardware). There's a little bit of the Pottering
    mentality in their development. And no sound regression testing or framework is in place.

    I mean, it's "his" baby and he can certainly develop it along any path he chooses. His drive seems
    to have it run (poorly) on as many devices as possible. Well, whatever ... I still use it (vlc-2.2.1),
    but the "newer" versions are: slower, broken, or have important features (to me) removed. I wrote
    a snapshot enhancement that writes a watermark on the image, saves the image locally (to the video
    rather than a global location) that I rely on. It's just not trivial to port it to the latest version because
    the infrastructure is a moving target.

    Trying to build the latest requires the latest release of your OS. Why are the newest libraries
    required in the build if there's no dependency on any "new" feature in said library?

    It's just stupid. Really...

    CAP === 'transmit'

  13. Quicktime Player... by mholve · · Score: 1

    ...does it very easily - and quickly.

  14. Java? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Does this mean it runs on more devices than Java now?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  15. Baby Shark? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    Can it play baby shark?

  16. VLC badly needs a user interface update. by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

    I'm a long time user of VLC and I have a love-hate relationship with it. On the one hand, I have a lot of loyalty and personal affection to the software, having used it to play back videos that could not be played by anything else. During the past couple of years, I feel that VLC has been falling back and feels harder to use compared to the other software I routinely use.

    First of all, the interface is clunky and awkward, still looking like it was written for CDE using X primitives instead of modern toolkits. This is jarringly off-putting, especially for new users. My wife and daughter refuse to use VLC and stick to other windows-based players as it `looks ugly'. Furthermore:

    1) The configuration menus are very non-intuitive.

    2) Simple functions like zoom, rotate, brightness controls etc are hard to access and buggy.

    3) The `variable zoom' interface is particularly awful, seriously who came up with that one? It is hard to imagine something more awkward to use.

    4) The configuration options may make sense to VLC programmers, but is REALLY hard for non-experts to use. For example, I want to map the `short step forward' to a non-default value, say 3 seconds. This took me nearly 30 minutes of experimentation to find out. There is no help for any of the options.

    5) VLC is missing a number of key functions that are absolutely must haves in 2019. For example, the ability to hold the mouse over the slider bar and see the frame corresponding to that position. I know this is possible because ExMplayer has had that feature for multiple years. Unfortunately that software seems to be dead, having not had an update for years.

    6) I don't want VLC to be another Kodi, but it should support some basic `media manager' features. Tagging, integrated searching, thumbnail management, ability to hover over a thumbnail and see video summaries etc are critically important when you are dealing with hundreds of videos. Ideally I would like something like Geeqie for videos.

    7) VLC should support `basic' video editiing. It does not have to compete with full-fledged non-linear video editors like Kdenlive or Openshot, but I should be able to (say) increase the brightness of a video, perform basic cropping etc and save the output to disk with reasonable quality. VLC can use ffmpeg to do the hard work, it just needs to provide an easy to use interface.

    I can go on and on, but you get the idea. My feeling is that the VLC developers are more focused on backend features like supporting the latest codecs and less on interface functionality. It would be great if someone could take the VLC core and wrap a better interface around it.

    Magnus.

  17. You don't need VLC for this... by gosand · · Score: 1

    SystemD is putting that feature out in the next version.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  18. Internet hero by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Not just free but it looks nice and still hasn't turned into bloatware after all this time.

  19. Re:Fix the playback then. by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 1

    Basically it's exactly as the AC posted. This goes for lots of stuff I've tried playing on it across multiple PCs. Even DVDs/BluRays.

  20. Re:How about by Shikaku · · Score: 1

    Disable Time-Stretching audio in the audio tab, it seems like it's enabled by default because it drops frames and slows the audio down to compensate, but nowadays it's really not needed unless your machine is slow as molasses.

  21. Re:Never make fun of a NERD by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Were a very sensitive lot...

    --
    [($)]