Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by admax88 View Post
    nVIDIA's open source efforts? Haha yeah right. Just because the API is documented does not make it open source.

    Also if we just pick vdpau then we're stuck with nVIDIA hardware. In my opinion VA-API is a better choice at this point since it has VDPAU and XvBA backends, plus direct support on intel hardware. This way we can support hardware accelerated video on nVIDIA/ATI/Intel GPUs, rather than just nVIDIA.
    the api is documented and is open source i though.t

    Originally posted by md1032 View Post
    Nothing is preventing those other vendors from implementing VDPAU drivers.
    that's exactly what i was trying to say! i didn't mean that everyone should develop for nvidia hardware. that's just dumb. i meant that intel and ati should take up vdpau.

    Comment


    • #47
      The follow-up post is available now

      Hi guys, the follow-up post mentioned in that blog entry is now available, and explains the thought process better, and answers the questions posed in the previous blog's comments, plus some other common questions about Flash, CPU's, and GPU's.

      http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2..._problems.html

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by md1032 View Post
        Ah, good old NIH syndrome. We totally can't use that Wheel thing because those jerks over there invented it!
        Yeah, why did NVIDIA create VDPAU when good old VAAPI already existed?

        I don't necessarily see anything wrong with companies choosing to implement vdpau acceleration in their drivers, it's certainly possible. But the real question is why should they? VAAPI already supports Intel + ATI (sort of) + Nvidia, so it doesn't make much sense from their perspective to suddenly change their development to focus on a different API that nvidia is pushing for.

        I mean, sure it's a little buggier for now, but if they all suddenly switched to vdpau their vdpau implementations would all be even buggier. Hopefully they'll get all the bugs ironed out soon.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          Yeah, why did NVIDIA create VDPAU when good old VAAPI already existed?
          VA-API was an a slow train to nowhere, was featureless ( and somewhat still is lagging ) and really was only useful at the time on the GMA500 (and we all know how well it's supported). Nvidia got the ball rolling and was extremely well received and adopted for various projects.

          You might want to check out http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1575 as it also covers some yet untapped potential of vdpau.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            VA-API was an a slow train to nowhere, was featureless ( and somewhat still is lagging ) and really was only useful at the time on the GMA500 (and we all know how well it's supported). Nvidia got the ball rolling and was extremely well received and adopted for various projects.

            You might want to check out http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1575 as it also covers some yet untapped potential of vdpau.
            Sure, but NVidia could have improved VA-API rather than implementing their own completely from scratch. Maybe it was easier for them to start from a clean base, but it does mean that attacks on VA-API being NIH-syndrome are pretty misplaced.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              Sure, but NVidia could have improved VA-API rather than implementing their own completely from scratch. Maybe it was easier for them to start from a clean base, but it does mean that attacks on VA-API being NIH-syndrome are pretty misplaced.
              VA-API at that point was essentially dead, abandoned, very incomplete (not to mention extremely shitty documentation) and a lot of the times it is quicker and more efficient to go another route (as was the case here). It wasn't until vdpau came out and Nvidia showed them up that they started to breath some life back into it. Until vdpau showed up accelerated video playback was a "when we have time if anybody is interested in it", the powers that be were more interested in highly useful stuff like "flicker free" boots.
              Last edited by deanjo; 01-28-2010, 12:29 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                VA-API at that point was essentially dead, abandoned, very incomplete (not to mention extremely shitty documentation) and a lot of the times it is quicker and more efficient to go another route (as was the case here). It wasn't until vdpau came out and Nvidia showed them up that they started to breath some life back into it.
                Isn't that pretty much what i just said? It was easier for NVidia to go their own way and that's fine, but then claiming that everyone else sticking with VA-API constitutes NIH-syndrome is nonsense.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  Isn't that pretty much what i just said? It was easier for NVidia to go their own way and that's fine, but then claiming that everyone else sticking with VA-API constitutes NIH-syndrome is nonsense.
                  How is sticking with a underdeveloped, slowly developed API "NIH-Syndrome nonsense". Most of VA-API's support came AFTER vdpau came out and exceeded any effort VA-API had put forward to that point?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Am I not being clear here?

                    1. VA-API comes out with a partially functional WIP.
                    2. NVidia decides that it's easier to make their own rather than improve the existing work
                    3. They're successful
                    4. The VA-API developers continue to work on their own code, rather than dropping all their work and switching to another codebase they are less familiar with
                    5. The VA-API developers are accused of NIH-syndrome.

                    That last bit is just stupid. If you're arguing otherwise, then I'm not sure we have anything more to discuss, because we're clearly not seeing eye to eye on this. I have no problems with what NVidia did, but to complain that everyone else hasn't dropped what they were already working on to dance to NVidia's tune? Ridiculous.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      How is sticking with a underdeveloped, slowly developed API "NIH-Syndrome nonsense". Most of VA-API's support came AFTER vdpau came out and exceeded any effort VA-API had put forward to that point?
                      VA-API support came after only in *your* mind. VA-API was already being used while VDPAU did not exist and even by the time NVIDIA was still explicitly stating "we have no intention to expose PureVideo to Linux". So, the choice was made. Besides, you probably know well how proprietary companies work and how difficult it is to even release binary-only code... This takes time.

                      If you believe VA-API was featureless for a long time. How come didn't we see any contributions from you to enhance the API? It's always easier to whine after something came out and also simpler to improve after others' experience. In other words, why didn't we see you design something comparable to VDPAU in the first place either?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by gbeauche View Post
                        If you believe VA-API was featureless for a long time. How come didn't we see any contributions from you to enhance the API? It's always easier to whine after something came out and also simpler to improve after others' experience. In other words, why didn't we see you design something comparable to VDPAU in the first place either?
                        Why? It's called a non-compete clause with 2 more years to go.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by gbeauche View Post
                          VA-API support came after only in *your* mind.
                          Please point me to the links where VA-API was incorporated into the major projects before Nov. 1998. Please also provide links that show VA-API being supported by the drivers (other then GMA500's) before that time as well.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            Please point me to the links where VA-API was incorporated into the major projects before Nov. 1998. Please also provide links that show VA-API being supported by the drivers (other then GMA500's) before that time as well.
                            Do you mean Nov. 2008? I would hope that VA-API doesn't need to be mature for a decade prior to VDPAU's beta release.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by jpelcis View Post
                              Do you mean Nov. 2008? I would hope that VA-API doesn't need to be mature for a decade prior to VDPAU's beta release.
                              Yup sure do.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by eokiahn View Post
                                The only problem with HTML5 is the h264/Ogg battle. Hey I'm all for open-source but sometimes I just want to watch videos and not be scrutinized for using a non-free codec.
                                Developers have to make software before you have the choice to use that software. It's the developers who are at risk for implementing patented mathematics here. An oxymoron, I know, but that's the sorry state of patents in the U.S. today, and Mozilla doesn't want to be sued.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X