VP9 Added To VA-API's Encode Capabilities For FFmpeg

[phoronix]

Phoronix: VP9 Added To VA-API's Encode Capabilities For FFmpeg

The latest Git code for FFmpeg now supports VA-API accelerated VP9 encoding...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=FFmpeg-VP9-Encode

[M@GOid]

And what was the motive for Canonical to pursue that proprietary Intel API?

[uid313]

I want a high security sandboxed video player that can only access the ~/Videos/ directory with read permissions.

[defaultUser]

I want a high security sandboxed video player that can only access the ~/Videos/ directory with read permissions.

Nominally even docker can foot your bill. However you are probably looking for things like firejail (https://firejail.wordpress.com/) or (http://sandbox.libvirt.org)

[eigenlambda]

And what was the motive for Canonical to pursue that proprietary Intel API?

vaapi is supported by the amd drivers and all major video players. it would be a surprise to use vdpau or whatever else

[shmerl]

What about AMD cards?

[gbcox]

And what was the motive for Canonical to pursue that proprietary Intel API?

I don't know... maybe because it is open source and used by other vendors besides Intel?

[89c51]

What about AMD cards?

They were supposed to enable it with a firmware update in their latest hardware but still nothing AFAIK. bridgman or anyone else from AMD might be able to tell more.

[Gusar]

I don't know... maybe because it is open source and used by other vendors besides Intel?

What M@GOid means by "proprietary Intel API" is *not* VAAPI, but QSV/Intel SDK. QSV is indeed proprietary and very much not used by other vendors. And he's questioning why Canonical is messing with that, rather than focusing on VAAPI.

BTW, ffmpeg supports QSV too, but why go through the hassle with that (kernel patches, proprietary fork of libva), when there's VAAPI. The only thing is, QSV support has been in ffmpeg since quite some time, while VAAPI encoding is a relatively new addition to ffmpeg.

[starshipeleven]

And what was the motive for Canonical to pursue that proprietary Intel API?

The same urge that pushes them to do incompatible and not-that-used software in the latest decade or so, I guess. They try to make something unique that only them have to attract something (users or sponsors or both).

Too bad that in opensource it does not usually work like that in the low levels of the OS.