Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FFmpeg 2.1 Supports VP9, HEVC, PulseAudio Output

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Meanwhile the VLC guys are not that stupid. There is still only one VLC.
    And VLC sucks, quality-wise. Compare an HD video with vibrant colors in VLC to the same video in Mplayer/2/MPV and unless you're blind you'll see that VLC is lacking.

    Another thing MPV has that VLC doesn't (and almost refuses to add): Wayland support. MPV has a wayland back-end. I saw a thread where a VLC dev told a user that Wayland support wasn't coming in the next 2/3 years because they would literally have to re-write their entire back-end because it's so shit.

    Note, this is coming from somebody who used VLC happily for over 2 years before finally getting into "which player is better and why".

    And for those who complain about MPV not having a font-end, it includes it's own small one called the OSC (On Screen Controls). It's nothing fancy, but it allows mouse usage for the common stuff: Switching audio/subtitle tracks, seeking, fast-forward/rewind, chapter skipping

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
      And VLC sucks, quality-wise. Compare an HD video with vibrant colors in VLC to the same video in Mplayer/2/MPV and unless you're blind you'll see that VLC is lacking.
      I only have MPlayer2 installed and I could never see a major difference. If you mean that colors are rendered differently, then maybe that't true but considering that I am capable of tweaking color settings, I don't care.

      Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
      Another thing MPV has that VLC doesn't (and almost refuses to add): Wayland support. MPV has a wayland back-end. I saw a thread where a VLC dev told a user that Wayland support wasn't coming in the next 2/3 years because they would literally have to re-write their entire back-end because it's so shit.
      [citation needed]

      Considering that A) the Qt5 port of VLC is progressing and B) VLC has output modules for OpenGL and SDL (at least OpenGL works on Wayland with Mesa drivers), I don't believe you.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
        [citation needed]

        Considering that A) the Qt5 port of VLC is progressing and B) VLC has output modules for OpenGL and SDL (at least OpenGL works on Wayland with Mesa drivers), I don't believe you.
        I took some time to look at VLC output code. VLC OpenGL is actually GLX implementation. You still need Wayland Surface to draw into it. And while it has EGL module too, you need Wayland specific features. I've tried to do something, but never got far. I gave up. I need more skill, I guess

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
          I only have MPlayer2 installed and I could never see a major difference. If you mean that colors are rendered differently, then maybe that't true but considering that I am capable of tweaking color settings, I don't care.


          [citation needed]

          Considering that A) the Qt5 port of VLC is progressing and B) VLC has output modules for OpenGL and SDL (at least OpenGL works on Wayland with Mesa drivers), I don't believe you.
          1: Not just colors. The smaller issues just show up better on more "vibrant" videos, to complement the larger issues (like video brightness...)

          2: Not the thread I saw, but close: https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/7936
          ^Basically says that they would have to re-write the entire UI because even though they would be using Qt5, it would not support Wayland. Also, they would have to re-write their EGL output.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
            It certainly supported PulseAudio input. As for output, it's hard to tell, typically you don't need to specify any options to ffplay to get the sound working...
            Ah yes, that's what I was thinking, input. Thanks.


            Originally posted by Nille View Post
            Why do you prefer libav? i see only that it waste many human resourcess. instead of making one better we have two on the same weel.
            I like libav better because I support the reasons behind their fork, however I don't want to drag that stuff up and start a discussion about it. You can look into it more on your own if you wish of course, but there's no reason to get into an argument about it. If people like ffmpeg more I don't care, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it and I don't feel the need to try and say my opinion is any better.


            Originally posted by johnc View Post
            Yeah mpv is interesting... but the last time I checked it didn't work with any front-ends, kinda making it pointless. I think it would have been better to get a replacement communication framework in place first, then after front-ends had moved over to the new way, deprecate the old way. But that's just my weird way of thinking. I guess I'll go investigate what the latest is with the project.
            There are at least two front-ends it works with, one of them my own personal media player I made and use and another I cannot remember the name of but it wouldn't be hard to find with Google I'm sure. Having worked with mplayer, mplayer2, and mpv for back-ends to my front-end, mpv is a much better thing to use for a back-end. The way mplayer and mplayer2 front-ends worked was by parsing command line output, which is an absolutely horrible way of doing things. mpv made a better way of doing front-ends, and any player that switched to it would be (in my opinion) much better.
            Last edited by MWisBest; 10-29-2013, 05:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MWisBest View Post
              I like libav better because I support the reasons behind their fork, however I don't want to drag that stuff up and start a discussion about it. You can look into it more on your own if you wish of course, but there's no reason to get into an argument about it. If people like ffmpeg more I don't care, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it and I don't feel the need to try and say my opinion is any better.
              The reasons for the fork were indeed good at the time. But it no longer applies today, and the FFmpeg folks are certainly more productive at the moment. In my opinion, they should just merge back again (and by merge back I mean close libav and have libav developers contribute to FFmpeg, since FFmpeg already merges things from libav, but seldom the other way round).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                The reasons for the fork were indeed good at the time. But it no longer applies today, and the FFmpeg folks are certainly more productive at the moment. In my opinion, they should just merge back again (and by merge back I mean close libav and have libav developers contribute to FFmpeg, since FFmpeg already merges things from libav, but seldom the other way round).
                I am aware of this, but for the time being I'm still sticking with libav whenever I can. I'm not very quick to forgive and I never forget, but I'll probably come around eventually.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                  Not just colors. The smaller issues just show up better on more "vibrant" videos, to complement the larger issues (like video brightness...)
                  Sounds like postprocessing. VLC may use different defaults than MPV for postprocessing but VLC uses standard FFmpeg video decoding could work exactly the same throughout all applications using FFmpeg.

                  Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                  Not the thread I saw, but close: https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/7936
                  ^Basically says that they would have to re-write the entire UI because even though they would be using Qt5, it would not support Wayland. Also, they would have to re-write their EGL output.
                  Nowhere does this say that they “literally have to re-write their entire back-end because it's so shit.” VLC has more code to port because unlike MPV VLC has a proper GUI. Porting the current Qt4 UI to Qt5 and develop Wayland support for it as well is some work but it's less work than replacing wxWidgets with Qt and VLC already did that.
                  That Courmisch dude is also just one guy. Other members of the VLC team could be more convinced about a Wayland port.

                  There is no refusal to port to Wayland and there is no word about a shitty back-end.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X