[Ffmpeg-devel-irc] ffmpeg.log.20170429

[burek]

[01:19:02 CEST] <cryptodechange> Accidentally hit a key which switched to debug mode during an encode
[01:19:16 CEST] <cryptodechange> How can I switch it back to the simplified output?
[01:19:34 CEST] <cryptodechange> note to self: don't wipe keyboard when computer does something important
[01:20:39 CEST] <BtbN> There's a debug mode?
[01:21:17 CEST] <cryptodechange> lots of verbose messages in green
[01:21:19 CEST] <cryptodechange> [matroska @ 0x25b2e80] Writing block at offset 209241, size 52324, pts 3477641, dts 3476974, duration 42, keyframe 0
[01:22:27 CEST] <cryptodechange> could be x264
[01:22:42 CEST] <BtbN> I wasn't aware the log level can be changed at runtime
[01:23:50 CEST] <cryptodechange> Interesting, I see this amongst the clutter
[01:23:52 CEST] <cryptodechange> cur_dts is invalid (this is harmless if it occurs once at the start per stream)
[01:24:15 CEST] <cryptodechange> It keeps appearing, not sure if harmless
[01:26:35 CEST] <furq> cryptodechange: -
[01:26:57 CEST] <furq> + to increase verbosity, - to decrease it
[01:28:44 CEST] <cryptodechange> \o/
[01:28:50 CEST] <cryptodechange> thanks
[01:29:55 CEST] <cryptodechange> One encode is ~ 0.7x slower than another
[01:30:28 CEST] <cryptodechange> Same settings, the slower encode is just mapped to the video stream instead of all the others
[01:30:35 CEST] <cryptodechange> I'm assuming it's down  to the complexity of the source?
[01:50:24 CEST] <james999> when doing udp mode is there a way to see the total bitrate of transmitting the video?
[01:50:35 CEST] <james999> in the right it says 1400kbit/s is that the total bitrate?
[01:51:00 CEST] <james999> if so how is it transmitting 1280x720 at 30fps? o_0
[01:52:01 CEST] <thebombzen> because 1400 kbps is the bitrate of the video you're transmitting?
[01:52:07 CEST] <thebombzen> I'm not sure why this is complicated
[01:52:22 CEST] <thebombzen> 1.5 Mbps is a somewhat low but reasonable bitrate for hd720 at 30
[01:57:30 CEST] <furq> depends on the source
[03:08:41 CEST] <damdai> why does it take 12 hours to encode 90min video using x265
[03:10:02 CEST] <thebombzen> because libx265 is slow
[03:10:45 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: but either way 1.4 Mbps is fine for 720p. at least it doesn't look wrong
[03:11:16 CEST] <damdai> thebombzen how long does it make on your computer
[03:11:26 CEST] <damdai> take*
[03:11:56 CEST] <thebombzen> well it depends on the settings. but HEVC encoding is going to be slow on the cpu even with a nice cpu
[03:12:13 CEST] <thebombzen> I use libx264 anyway because the encoding time isn't really worth it
[03:12:27 CEST] <thebombzen> especially given that YouTube still doesn't support HEVC
[03:14:02 CEST] <damdai>  <Yuken> ;"""""because x265 only uses 2 threads"   ... is this true
[03:14:30 CEST] <thebombzen> no
[03:14:41 CEST] <thebombzen> at least not with any recent build of it
[03:14:59 CEST] <thebombzen> hevc is just a very computationally complex codec and libx265 is slow
[03:15:29 CEST] <damdai> i have 4core 8 threads cpu
[03:15:38 CEST] <damdai> can libx265 use all 8 threads?
[03:15:41 CEST] <thebombzen> well you know x265 prints stats right
[03:16:04 CEST] <damdai> i am using x265 via handbrake
[03:25:21 CEST] <damdai> is there a hardware i can buy to make x265 faster?
[03:27:37 CEST] <furq> a better cpu
[03:31:29 CEST] <mrose> What is the difference between using ffmpeg and ffserver for a single rtp multicast?
[03:31:36 CEST] <damdai> furq  other than CPU
[03:33:27 CEST] <thebombzen> mrose: ffmpeg is a transcoder
[03:33:31 CEST] <thebombzen> ffserver is a server
[03:33:49 CEST] <thebombzen> damdai: you can try to encode it on your GPU and it'll be fast but the quality will be pretty bad
[03:33:57 CEST] <thebombzen> bad as in, worse than software libx264
[03:34:07 CEST] <damdai> why would quality be different
[03:34:19 CEST] <damdai> i don't get it
[03:34:29 CEST] <thebombzen> because the encoder isn't as good
[03:34:43 CEST] <thebombzen> encoders have to make decisions about what data to throw out. some encoders are better at that.
[03:35:01 CEST] <thebombzen> gpus are very bad at branches and decisionmaking so their algorithms are much more primitive
[03:35:03 CEST] <damdai> but if you doing math (calculating pie for example),  either you are use CPU to do that or GPU to do that. answer will be same
[03:35:11 CEST] <thebombzen> damdai: because you're not doing something like that
[03:35:19 CEST] <thebombzen> the way lossy compression works is that you have to throw out data
[03:35:34 CEST] <damdai> okay
[03:35:41 CEST] <mrose> when i run ffmpeg -f alsa -i hw:0 -f rtp rtp://...:5004, isn't ffmpeg 'serving'?
[03:35:43 CEST] <thebombzen> choosing what data to get rid of is a lot of choices
[03:35:53 CEST] <thebombzen> and gpus are bad at branched programming
[03:36:05 CEST] <thebombzen> so gpu encoding is much more primitive and will have a lower visual quality
[03:36:08 CEST] <damdai> thebombzen oh okay
[03:36:23 CEST] <damdai> thebombzen what is better for calculating pie then
[03:36:30 CEST] <thebombzen> an oven
[03:37:12 CEST] <thebombzen> the answer is, "it's completely irrelevant" because calculating pi to arbitary precision isn't something you want to do or care to do
[03:37:16 CEST] <damdai> what makes x265 lossy video compression better than older method like mpeg2
[03:37:22 CEST] <thebombzen> it's a more complex format
[03:37:41 CEST] <damdai> they are both same idea/concept though. it has to throw out data
[03:37:41 CEST] <thebombzen> the encoder can make choices but it still has to comply to the bitstream format
[03:38:19 CEST] <thebombzen> but also keep in mind that this is true for lossless compression as well. xz is better than gzip even though they have the same amount of data (all of it)
[03:38:25 CEST] <thebombzen> cause mpeg2 isn't optimal
[03:38:58 CEST] <thebombzen> they're differnet video coding formats and mpeg2 is less optimized
[03:39:25 CEST] <thebombzen> something like H.264 is much more complex format and thus you can achieve better compression and quality with it
[03:39:39 CEST] <thebombzen> HEVC is about twice as complex as H.264
[03:39:50 CEST] <damdai> would you able to tell the difference between h265 bluray movie vs  vc1 bluray movie
[03:39:54 CEST] <damdai> h264* sorry
[03:40:07 CEST] <thebombzen> well vc1 sucks
[03:40:16 CEST] <thebombzen> so at the same bitrate, yes, depending on how high it is.
[03:40:28 CEST] <thebombzen> at enormous bitrates you won't be able to tell the difference
[03:45:30 CEST] <damdai> i was told vc1 was better than h264 when bluray first came out, but now  h264 is much better
[03:45:36 CEST] <damdai> is that true
[03:46:44 CEST] <thebombzen> H.264 encoders are better. specifically x264
[04:04:19 CEST] <mrose> so a typical flow would be transcoder > server
[04:05:25 CEST] <damdai> thebombzen people say x264 is best encoder but i cannot tell people are just saying that because we are in freenode and they are bias to it
[04:06:42 CEST] <mrose> if the ffmpeg can output directly to rtp, is ffserver necessary? It does not appear to be running in the background or anything.
[04:06:53 CEST] <james999> according to ffmpeg -codecs it can encode/decode h265 video
[04:07:09 CEST] <james999> do you think vlc on the xbox one can decode h265?
[04:07:32 CEST] <pzy> probably
[04:14:09 CEST] <james999> says it has double the data rate
[04:14:33 CEST] <james999> I was able to stream hd (720p) over my wifi to my xbox but not full 1080p
[04:14:48 CEST] <james999> but that was with x264
[04:22:55 CEST] <pzy> are you talking about wifi being the bottleneck, or the xbox cpu
[04:24:15 CEST] <james999> i don't know but i presume the wifi
[04:24:31 CEST] <james999> i'm not sure how i can measure my wifi speed as i only have 1 pc and 1 xbox atm
[04:55:12 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: vlc has libavcodec as a plugin
[04:55:21 CEST] <thebombzen> so it should be able to decode anything libavcodec can decode
[04:55:49 CEST] <thebombzen> damdai: we x264 is the best because it is. it consistently performs at the top of comparisons
[04:56:19 CEST] <thebombzen> mkrs: ffmpeg can output to rtp unicase
[04:56:28 CEST] <thebombzen> ffserver is a multimedia streaming server
[04:56:57 CEST] <thebombzen> for live applications, usually you have ffserver doing the streaming but there's an ffmpeg process piped to it
[04:57:10 CEST] <damdai> thebombzen  is it good enough for hollywood to use x264 on their bluray disc
[04:57:22 CEST] <thebombzen> yes although they don't because hollywood is weird
[04:57:39 CEST] <thebombzen> hollywood insists on using proprietary encoders for some weird reason
[04:57:46 CEST] <thebombzen> YouTube does use x264 to encode their youtube videos though
[05:05:23 CEST] <mkrs> thebombzen, is that rtp unicast? as in not multicast?
[05:05:36 CEST] <thebombzen> yes
[05:06:15 CEST] <TD-Linux> umm x264 is nowhere near the best anymore
[05:06:36 CEST] <TD-Linux> best h264 encoder sure.
[05:08:24 CEST] <thebombzen> yea that's what I meant
[05:11:01 CEST] <mkrs> okay. I've been sending ffmpeg output to an rtp:// multicast address. maybe that has been the cause of some of the frustrations
[05:11:10 CEST] <mkrs> thank you :)
[05:23:19 CEST] <james999> x264 is not best at what, h264 encoding or video in general?
[05:43:18 CEST] <thebombzen> perhaps you should read
[05:55:54 CEST] <james999> TD-linux said x264 is nowhere near the best, but is best h264 encoder
[05:55:59 CEST] <james999> Then you said you agreed.
[06:28:27 CEST] <damdai> people say x264 is best encoder but i cannot tell people are just saying that because we are in freenode and they are bias to it
[06:28:42 CEST] <damdai> james999 i think thebombzen was responding to my statement
[06:41:25 CEST] <james999> i think he was responding to mkrs
[06:41:47 CEST] <james999> but i think i figured out my mistake, I didn't realize libx264 is only an encoder not a decoder
[06:42:02 CEST] <james999> ffmpeg -codecs lists h264 ENcoders as h264 h264_qsv libopenh264 h264_cuvid
[06:43:02 CEST] <james999> TD-Linux made it sound like x264 wasn't the best decoder but still the best encoder
[06:46:36 CEST] <james999> http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html
[06:47:49 CEST] <furq> x264 is the best h.264 encoder, but h.264 is getting on for 14 years old
[06:48:15 CEST] <furq> there are newer codecs that theoretically kick its teeth in
[06:48:48 CEST] <furq> but practically x264 is still very good and the newer encoders (x265, libvpx, av1 whenever that comes out) are slow or immature or both
[06:51:01 CEST] <james999> that reminds me i should test if that vlc on xbox one can decode h265 reasonably well
[06:51:48 CEST] <furq> well nothing uses h265 so it probably doesn't matter
[06:52:25 CEST] <james999>  well i couldnt' quite get full HD over my wifi before but if x265 is better i thought mb i can reach 1920x1080 without lag
[06:52:38 CEST] <james999> of course maybe my wifi is just bad, i have no way to measure it that i know of
[06:52:56 CEST] <furq> you won't be able to encode 1080p30 h265 in realtime
[06:53:03 CEST] <james999> oh
[06:53:10 CEST] <furq> well you will but the quality will be worse than x264
[06:53:36 CEST] <james999> would i have to like, do it offline and then tweak the settings to improve on x264?
[06:53:50 CEST] <furq> x265 is only worth using if you use a preset which is slower than x264 -preset veryslow
[06:54:12 CEST] <james999> i assume it's -vcodec libx265. The out put of ffmpeg -codecs is a little ambiguous, sometimes it says decoders (...) or (encoders...) in the description
[06:54:21 CEST] <furq> and unless you've got some dual xeon server there, you're not going to get that kind of speed
[06:54:42 CEST] <james999> ah ok, that's' why you said "theoretically" kick its teeth
[06:54:52 CEST] <furq> well also x265 is just generally less mature than x264
[06:55:02 CEST] <furq> x264 is probably the most thoroughly developed encoder to ever exist
[06:55:14 CEST] <furq> they've really squeezed every last bit of life out of that standard
[06:55:19 CEST] <furq> whereas x265 has still got a long way to go
[06:55:36 CEST] <james999> interesting that youtube uses an open source standard for its encoding
[06:55:41 CEST] <furq> and also their development model isn't nearly as open
[06:55:43 CEST] <furq> and er
[06:55:53 CEST] <furq> h264 isn't open, you have to pay for a license
[06:56:09 CEST] <james999> to do what? encode in it?
[06:56:17 CEST] <furq> to use it at all
[06:56:27 CEST] <furq> it doesn't really matter unless you're making money from it in the US
[06:56:42 CEST] <james999> ah ok. that explains why every person with a smart phone isn't paying a license fee
[06:56:55 CEST] <furq> well the smartphone manufacturers will pay the decoder license if it's needed
[06:56:57 CEST] <james999> I think in britain they call the tax for the BBC the "license" or something. confused me for awhile
[06:57:04 CEST] <james999> as in "I paid my bbc license fee"
[06:57:08 CEST] <furq> it's a tv license
[06:57:22 CEST] <furq> if you receive tv signals then you need to pay a license
[06:57:34 CEST] <furq> it pays for the bbc but nobody calls it the bbc license
[06:58:15 CEST] <furq> they keep sending me threatening letters saying "YOU KNOW. WE KNOW" even though i already told them i don't have a tv
[06:58:16 CEST] <james999> that youtuber I was litsening to did. he lives in the UK
[06:58:19 CEST] <furq> although even if i did, they can't do anything
[06:58:28 CEST] <james999> your whois says paris though
[06:58:30 CEST] <furq> they have no legal authority to come into your house and check
[06:58:37 CEST] <james999> you live in the UK?
[06:58:47 CEST] <furq> yes, and paris is the freenode server i'm connected to
[06:58:56 CEST] <james999>  oh my bad
[06:59:19 CEST] <james999> so it's not something factored into the cost of the tv?
[06:59:24 CEST] <furq> no
[06:59:26 CEST] <thebombzen> and yes re: phones with H.264 decoders, you are paying for them
[06:59:28 CEST] <furq> it's like £130 a year or something
[06:59:30 CEST] <james999> it's a specific thing you write a check for and mail it in?
[06:59:31 CEST] <thebombzen> it's just included in the cost of the phone
[06:59:33 CEST] <furq> yeah
[06:59:48 CEST] <furq> well not a cheque because it's not 1973
[06:59:52 CEST] <furq> direct debit
[07:00:06 CEST] <thebombzen> when you pay for the phone you're also paying for the development of the operating system, including any licening fees for technology
[07:00:17 CEST] <james999> lol over in the US they are craftier, a devilishly clever economist named Milton Friedman came up with the concept of income withholding
[07:00:33 CEST] <james999> So people get their taxes deducted automatically instead of paying it themselves.
[07:00:48 CEST] <thebombzen> not really
[07:00:49 CEST] <james999> If they wanted to fool ya they'd factor those licenses into the tv cost.
[07:00:49 CEST] <furq> that happens automatically here
[07:01:00 CEST] <furq> your taxes just get deducted from your paycheque
[07:01:07 CEST] <furq> you only have to do your own taxes if you're self-employed
[07:01:28 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: it's not that your taxes are paid automatically. it's more that if you're a Salaried (W2) employee then it's fairly easy to estimate your taxes at the end of the year
[07:01:37 CEST] <james999> sure, i'm saying it would be harder to complain about the bbc thing if it was incorporated into buying the tv
[07:01:50 CEST] <thebombzen> so your taxes are withheld from your paycheck by the employer and sent to the IRS
[07:01:55 CEST] <furq> i mean they could do that, but it's an annual fee
[07:02:03 CEST] <furq> and people don't buy tvs that often
[07:02:24 CEST] <james999> 130 pounds you said?
[07:02:50 CEST] <furq> apparently it's £147
[07:02:57 CEST] <furq> so about $200
[07:03:11 CEST] <thebombzen> wait why are you receiving angry letters from the BBC if you don't have cable
[07:03:16 CEST] <james999> that's pretty damn high for just the bbc. that's more like your whole cable package here
[07:03:27 CEST] <furq> when i moved in they sent me a letter and i went on their website and told them i don't have a tv
[07:03:42 CEST] <thebombzen> well what are they going to do? cut off your cable service?
[07:03:43 CEST] <furq> but they changed the law so that you can no longer watch catchup services online
[07:03:52 CEST] <furq> without a license
[07:04:00 CEST] <thebombzen> shrug
[07:04:07 CEST] <furq> so now they're sending me letters again and i've been too lazy to tell them that i pirate all my tv
[07:04:11 CEST] <thebombzen> in the US if you don't pay your cable bill to your cable company they just cut off service
[07:04:21 CEST] <thebombzen> which isn't a problem if you don't have a TV
[07:04:27 CEST] <furq> it's all OTA here
[07:04:28 CEST] <james999> maybe they think he has a tv?
[07:04:36 CEST] <thebombzen> OTA? you mean like electricity?
[07:04:43 CEST] <furq> do you get electricity over the air
[07:04:48 CEST] <thebombzen> oh "over the air"
[07:04:54 CEST] <thebombzen> you actually have over the air tv
[07:04:54 CEST] <furq> wtf did you think i meant
[07:05:06 CEST] <thebombzen> I didn't know what OTA meant i figured you were talking about the "company" part
[07:05:35 CEST] <thebombzen> but hm I didn't know you have over the air TV in britain
[07:05:37 CEST] <james999> so it's easy for people to receive signals illegally and not be detected. so the solution is to demand everyoen pay this fee?
[07:05:38 CEST] <furq> yeah
[07:06:00 CEST] <thebombzen> but how can they broadcast TV and then charge everyone for it
[07:06:01 CEST] <furq> it's called "freeview" because i guess "£147view" didn't sound as catchy
[07:06:10 CEST] <furq> by making a law that says they can do that
[07:06:24 CEST] <thebombzen> I mean sure but public utilities make sense for actual necessary services
[07:06:28 CEST] <thebombzen> like water
[07:06:29 CEST] <james999> the UK has no written constitution. I imagine they pass laws based on... things...
[07:06:33 CEST] <thebombzen> and even still they have pay what you use
[07:06:48 CEST] <thebombzen> or even healthcare, like in canada at least makes sense
[07:06:50 CEST] <james999> I live in a rural area and get a water bill that I have to pay
[07:06:56 CEST] <furq> i mean it is stupid
[07:07:08 CEST] <furq> in years gone by i'd have said it was worth it because it funds the bbc
[07:07:14 CEST] <furq> but the bbc has been increasingly shit lately
[07:07:22 CEST] <james999> furq: the video I was watching the guy was complaining about the BBC's reporting and behavior and why he had to fund it
[07:07:25 CEST] <thebombzen> but the problem is the ridiculous price
[07:07:44 CEST] <furq> i actually stopped watching iplayer when the law came in saying you'd need a tv license to watch it
[07:07:46 CEST] <thebombzen> the US government funds things like National Public Radio (which is free, funded by taxes) but it's not like it's 147 pounds
[07:07:56 CEST] <furq> so i'm not avoiding them or anything, i legit don't have to pay
[07:08:02 CEST] <furq> and i've not missed it at all
[07:08:07 CEST] <thebombzen> per person NPR is less than 1c per dollar
[07:08:19 CEST] <furq> you can't really compare the bbc to npr
[07:08:21 CEST] <thebombzen> per tax dollar per person per year I mean
[07:08:21 CEST] <james999> so the law was written to only apply to tv owners?
[07:08:33 CEST] <furq> and yeah
[07:08:34 CEST] <thebombzen> furq: why not?
[07:08:40 CEST] <furq> you could just fold it into taxes but then everyone would have to pay
[07:08:49 CEST] <thebombzen> well the order of magnitude is different
[07:08:52 CEST] <furq> and i imagine 50+ years ago that would be controversial because people who didn't have tvs were paying for it
[07:09:02 CEST] <furq> it's probably less controversial now but we already do it this way
[07:09:17 CEST] <thebombzen> things like the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, etc. those are similar but the main difference is that they're really really cheap
[07:09:18 CEST] <furq> and yeah the bbc is pretty huge
[07:09:37 CEST] <furq> pbs might be a better comparison but the bbc is probably much bigger than that too
[07:09:41 CEST] <thebombzen> the average person spends extremely little on it. like in the order of 1 dollar per year in taxes
[07:09:53 CEST] <thebombzen> PBS is underneath CPB
[07:09:54 CEST] <thebombzen> but yea
[07:10:03 CEST] <james999> what i want to know is what does bbc spend all that money on. how much is actual investigative reporting?
[07:10:15 CEST] <furq> it's a tv network
[07:10:17 CEST] <furq> they make tv shows
[07:10:30 CEST] <james999> that's what really grinds my gears. these media empires expect you to pay for their services, but their "reporting" consists of reading the AP wire or copying a police statement.
[07:10:43 CEST] <furq> it's not a news network
[07:10:54 CEST] <thebombzen> but yea 147 pounds per year is absurd
[07:10:56 CEST] <james999> i only know it through bbc news
[07:11:01 CEST] <furq> i know most people outside of the uk only experience....yeah
[07:11:02 CEST] <james999> i didn't know they had shows
[07:11:12 CEST] <furq> but surely your favourite show is the beloved, "top gear"
[07:11:18 CEST] <thebombzen> but of course
[07:11:27 CEST] <thebombzen> get it
[07:11:30 CEST] <thebombzen> of race course
[07:11:31 CEST] <thebombzen> nvm
[07:11:33 CEST] <furq> with the idiot, the dickhead and the loser
[07:11:42 CEST] <TD-Linux> also that one insufferable scifi show
[07:11:43 CEST] <furq> having hilarious conversations about how mexicans are lazy
[07:11:51 CEST] <thebombzen> I don't actually watch top gear
[07:11:55 CEST] <furq> nobody does
[07:11:58 CEST] <thebombzen> my roommate does
[07:12:00 CEST] <furq> also yeah doctor who
[07:12:02 CEST] <thebombzen> he watches it on amazon prime
[07:12:05 CEST] <thebombzen> cause he's weird
[07:12:05 CEST] <furq> or as i cleverly call it...doctor poo
[07:12:09 CEST] <furq> the one on amazon isn't top gear
[07:12:16 CEST] <TD-Linux> the secret life of machines, however, is excellent
[07:12:17 CEST] <thebombzen> oh it's the one in the US or something
[07:12:21 CEST] <furq> clarkson got sacked from the bbc for repeatedly making racist jokes and then slugging a producer in the face
[07:12:29 CEST] <thebombzen> where they threw money at like 6 minutes
[07:12:30 CEST] <furq> so they fucked off to amazon to make the exact same show but called THE GRAND TOUR
[07:12:34 CEST] <TD-Linux> if I could time travel back to 1989 in the UK and pay the tv license that year, I would
[07:12:48 CEST] <TD-Linux> that show cost at least $100 to make
[07:12:49 CEST] <thebombzen> ah, I just googled it, PBS costs US taxdollars $1.37 per year
[07:12:49 CEST] <furq> top gear used to be fairly good
[07:12:52 CEST] <thebombzen> per person I mean
[07:12:58 CEST] <thebombzen> so yea that's not quite 147 pounds
[07:12:58 CEST] <furq> but then it turned into some kind of fucking slapstick nonsense
[07:13:10 CEST] <james999> I looked for top bbc shows and several of them are scifi, that can't be right
[07:13:25 CEST] <thebombzen> Doctor Who is famous
[07:13:30 CEST] <james999> merlin, doctor who,
[07:13:32 CEST] <thebombzen> but other than that I have no idea what you're talking about
[07:13:35 CEST] <furq> lol i googled it and "MERLIN" and "TORCHWOOD" are on there
[07:13:36 CEST] <furq> what the fuck
[07:13:41 CEST] <thebombzen> Merlin doesn't sound scifi
[07:13:46 CEST] <furq> also fawlty towers is on there which hasn't been on the air since 1979
[07:13:47 CEST] <thebombzen> Merlin sounds like a fantasy show
[07:13:48 CEST] <furq> and also it's shit
[07:13:59 CEST] <furq> merlin is a kids' show about wizards
[07:14:19 CEST] <furq> this list is fucking baffling. i've never heard of half of this
[07:14:26 CEST] <furq> and the stuff i have heard of is unwatchable
[07:14:46 CEST] <thebombzen> the only british wizarding stuff I know about is Harry Potter
[07:14:48 CEST] <furq> there is one show i really like on page 2, and that's it
[07:14:58 CEST] <furq> see if you can guess which one
[07:15:02 CEST] <thebombzen> I can't.
[07:15:05 CEST] <james999> this torchwood show sounds wonky: "Over its run, the show explored a number of themes; prominent among these were existentialism, homosexual and bisexual relationships, and explorations of human corruptibility."
[07:15:16 CEST] <furq> james999: what is "torchwood" an anagram of
[07:15:45 CEST] <james999> um... dorch twoo?
[07:15:48 CEST] <furq> i'll give you a clue, you typed it within the last three minutes
[07:15:49 CEST] <thebombzen> wood torch?
[07:16:14 CEST] <james999> oh lol
[07:16:18 CEST] <james999> it's an anagram of doctor who
[07:16:22 CEST] <furq> that's literally the only thing i know about it
[07:16:35 CEST] <james999> i think that proves the show is probably overly pretentious
[07:16:40 CEST] <thebombzen> I was thinking Trood Chow
[07:16:41 CEST] <thebombzen> but okay
[07:16:42 CEST] <james999> with a title too clever by half
[07:16:45 CEST] <furq> nothing associated with doctor who is pretentious
[07:17:04 CEST] <TD-Linux> furq, house of cards?
[07:17:25 CEST] <furq> no but it is about politics
[07:17:27 CEST] <furq> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It
[07:17:36 CEST] <thebombzen> wait we were talking about wood
[07:17:37 CEST] <james999> actually the existential bisexuality makes sense to me now, b/c the only doctor who fan i know is a old philosopher dude with no wife
[07:17:39 CEST] <thebombzen> and here now you have a thicket
[07:17:49 CEST] <furq> thebombzen: you should stop
[07:18:00 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: I think that's more of the old thing
[07:18:04 CEST] <thebombzen> it's been around since the 60s right
[07:18:22 CEST] <james999> yeah. i watched a thing about peter troughton doing it
[07:18:23 CEST] <furq> funnily enough the new doctor who was the main character in the thick of it
[07:18:30 CEST] <furq> although he tells people to fuck off less often as doctor who
[07:20:19 CEST] <james999> i have to wonder how british people perceive a show like "House of Cards"
[07:20:45 CEST] <thebombzen> british people secretly live in houses of cards so they read the show as "house"
[07:20:49 CEST] <furq> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)
[07:20:51 CEST] <furq> we like it
[07:21:21 CEST] <james999> lol what, is this one of those shows that they clone in the other country like The Office?
[07:21:32 CEST] <furq> they're both based on the same novel
[07:21:39 CEST] <furq> i think the us version is explicitly adapted from the bbc miniseries
[07:21:58 CEST] <thebombzen> I don't think this is at all like The Office
[07:22:13 CEST] <thebombzen> which is as I call it a "cringe comedy"
[07:22:29 CEST] <james999> also i goofed the name it's Patrick Troughton
[07:22:30 CEST] <furq> everything good in america is stolen from another country
[07:22:37 CEST] <thebombzen> including America
[07:22:42 CEST] <furq> exactly
[07:22:45 CEST] <furq> except that's not very good
[07:23:04 CEST] <thebombzen> let's see what's good in America
[07:23:17 CEST] <thebombzen> we took cool TV from britain, we took pizza from italy
[07:23:36 CEST] <thebombzen> we took our language from the UK as well
[07:23:43 CEST] <furq> your best standup comedians are norm macdonald (canada), louis ck (mexico) and dave chappelle (africa)
[07:23:56 CEST] <thebombzen> I have no idea who norm macdonald is and dave chappelle are
[07:24:02 CEST] <furq> for fuck's sake
[07:24:06 CEST] <thebombzen> and Louis CK is some redhead jerk right
[07:24:11 CEST] <furq> have you actually emerged from the womb yet
[07:24:41 CEST] <thebombzen> I'm 21 and I'm spending my friday night on freenode IRC channels
[07:24:41 CEST] <james999> well the US has george carlin
[07:24:46 CEST] <furq> had
[07:24:48 CEST] <thebombzen> why do you think I should know pop culture
[07:24:51 CEST] <thebombzen> and yea george carlin is dead
[07:25:07 CEST] <furq> norm macdonald hasn't been described as "pop culture" since 1997
[07:25:12 CEST] <thebombzen> I was 1 year old
[07:25:13 CEST] <james999> you're so picky. how about george lucas does that count
[07:25:23 CEST] <furq> george lucas is only creatively dead
[07:25:23 CEST] <thebombzen> but we did steal Trevor Noah from Africa too
[07:25:52 CEST] <thebombzen> furq: how old are you?
[07:25:59 CEST] <furq> 31
[07:26:03 CEST] <thebombzen> :P
[07:26:16 CEST] <thebombzen> you're not exactly an oldfart
[07:26:26 CEST] <thebombzen> calling me a whippersnapper
[07:26:28 CEST] <furq> i'm old enough to have just got really sad when i typed "31"
[07:26:42 CEST] <thebombzen> >31 years old
[07:26:44 CEST] <thebombzen> >really sad
[07:26:46 CEST] <furq> although that might have more to do with how i'm spending my friday night
[07:26:57 CEST] <thebombzen> yea, I don't think I'm going to be really sad that I'm super old at 31
[07:27:14 CEST] <james999> dave chappele was born in the capital, hardly stealing him from another country
[07:27:27 CEST] <furq> i was making a funny and controversial remark like dave chappelle would
[07:27:29 CEST] <thebombzen> the capital of what
[07:27:33 CEST] <james999> the country
[07:27:35 CEST] <furq> the capital of washington dc
[07:27:47 CEST] <thebombzen> which country, the US?
[07:27:48 CEST] <thebombzen> then how did we steal him from afirca
[07:27:51 CEST] <james999> also the thing bout getting old is  everybody thinks the next group is what is "old"
[07:27:53 CEST] <furq> he is black
[07:27:58 CEST] <thebombzen> oh
[07:28:02 CEST] <thebombzen> perhaps you could have said Trevor Noah
[07:28:05 CEST] <james999> there are literally 50 year olds in trailer parks who think of the 70 year olds as "those old people"
[07:28:06 CEST] <thebombzen> who is actually from Africa
[07:28:10 CEST] <furq> i said funny comedians
[07:28:45 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: "old" is relative
[07:28:55 CEST] <thebombzen> if you're a professional sportball player then 31 is old
[07:28:55 CEST] <furq> i mean if i'd wanted to make a point by lying i'd have said john oliver
[07:29:04 CEST] <furq> rejected radio 2 panel show guest john oliver
[07:29:04 CEST] <thebombzen> John Oliver is funny
[07:29:25 CEST] <furq> i have tons of radio 2 panel shows from the late 2000s here where john oliver was the least funny guest
[07:29:26 CEST] <james999> did you see amy schumer's comedy sketch about "last fuckable day" for celebrities?
[07:29:36 CEST] <thebombzen> no
[07:29:46 CEST] <thebombzen> why would I care about the last fuckable day
[07:29:48 CEST] <james999> she goes up to a table of female celebrities like the chick from seinfeld
[07:29:49 CEST] <furq> that was his job until he went to america and became extremely famous for having a funny accent
[07:30:00 CEST] <furq> it's good to have standards
[07:30:00 CEST] <james999> and they complain about how they don't get hired past a certain age of believability
[07:30:10 CEST] <thebombzen> furq: he's famous because lots of people think he's funny
[07:30:12 CEST] <james999> as in, it's believable someone would want to date her
[07:30:16 CEST] <thebombzen> furq: you may disagree but that's why he's famous
[07:30:36 CEST] <furq> he's famous because some executive thought he had a suitably funny accent to be given the fleet of writers he has
[07:30:56 CEST] <thebombzen> not really, he's famous because a lot of people think he's funny
[07:31:02 CEST] <furq> i mean i don't dislike the guy
[07:31:08 CEST] <james999> furq: i can believe that. even wtih writers he's never struck me as particularly smart or funny
[07:31:13 CEST] <thebombzen> I mean I don't think Amy Schumer is funny but lots of people do, which is why he's famous
[07:31:13 CEST] <furq> it's just funny to me that he couldn't cut it over here so now he's a superstar in america
[07:31:26 CEST] <furq> much like ricky gervais
[07:31:36 CEST] <furq> except i think he's a dick
[07:31:37 CEST] <thebombzen> that sounds like a name my parents would say
[07:31:42 CEST] <james999> yeah these are called "famous because famous". the kardashians are the textbook example of that
[07:31:49 CEST] <james999> kim kardashian literally did nothing but release a sex tape
[07:31:55 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: this is not an example of that
[07:31:56 CEST] <furq> i mean those people have actually made things that are of some cultural value
[07:31:58 CEST] <james999> and now she's "famous because she's famous"
[07:32:03 CEST] <thebombzen> kim kardashian doesn't actually do anything
[07:32:15 CEST] <thebombzen> John Oliver hosts a TV comedy show
[07:32:28 CEST] <thebombzen> you might not find him funny, but he's not famous simply because he's famous
[07:32:29 CEST] <furq> kim kardashian is famous because she has buttocks and her dad got a murderer acquitted
[07:32:33 CEST] <james999> i'd like to see his earlier panel 2 work
[07:32:47 CEST] <furq> i would also like to see radio shows
[07:32:55 CEST] <thebombzen> I really wouldn't
[07:33:04 CEST] <james999> well, if you're only on tv because an executive randomly liked your accent
[07:33:07 CEST] <thebombzen> talk radio? *eww shudder*
[07:33:11 CEST] <james999> isn't that basically being famous for no reason?
[07:33:16 CEST] <thebombzen> james999: but that's not what happened
[07:33:35 CEST] <furq> i mean it is what happened, but he had to work for years to get that massive stroke of good fortune
[07:33:47 CEST] <thebombzen> no, it's actually not
[07:33:53 CEST] <james999> i mean how many celebrities we have exist basically just to fill a role, and you could swap them out with anybody else and with the same money and staff do the same thing
[07:34:22 CEST] <furq> that's true of 99% of everybody
[07:34:46 CEST] <thebombzen> "he was interviewed for the show on the recommendation of comedian Ricky Gervais, who had never met Oliver but was familiar with his work."
[07:34:49 CEST] <james999> haha, maybe so
[07:34:54 CEST] <furq> fuck's sake not ricky gervais
[07:34:54 CEST] <thebombzen> he was recommended for the job from another comedian
[07:35:03 CEST] <furq> you forgot to put "comedian" in scare quotes
[07:35:04 CEST] <james999> fox news is going to find out soon if it applies to Bill O'Reilly
[07:35:15 CEST] <thebombzen> furq: I quoted wikipedia
[07:35:18 CEST] <furq> hasn't he already been replaced by "tucker carlson"
[07:35:18 CEST] <thebombzen> you're free to edit them in
[07:35:26 CEST] <thebombzen> hell I don't even know who Ricky Gervais is
[07:35:28 CEST] <james999> exactly.
[07:35:36 CEST] <thebombzen> but I don't know who anybody is
[07:35:39 CEST] <thebombzen> I'm not a good litmus test
[07:35:46 CEST] <james999> although maybe it's not a good test because carlson is smart and thoughtful
[07:35:59 CEST] <james999> they should have grabbed an anchor and done that instead
[07:36:07 CEST] <james999> and see if the ratings stay the same
[07:36:09 CEST] <thebombzen> I'm especially not a good litmus test for comedians who were around when I was 8 years old
[07:36:28 CEST] <furq> it doesn't surprise me that you're unaware of comedians
[07:37:03 CEST] <thebombzen> anyway, I'm saying that many popular comedians like Amu Schumer or John Oliver are around not because "someone liked their accent" or whatever
[07:37:05 CEST] <james999> would jerry seinfeld count as a "comedian"?
[07:37:08 CEST] <thebombzen> it's because lots of people find them funny
[07:37:15 CEST] <furq> you mean jerry seinfeld the famous standup comedian
[07:37:18 CEST] <furq> probably
[07:37:29 CEST] <thebombzen> the guy famous for the original comedy sitcom?
[07:37:31 CEST] <thebombzen> yea
[07:37:36 CEST] <james999> good lol at least we can agree on that
[07:37:44 CEST] <furq> i don't understand how anyone could disagree with that
[07:37:48 CEST] <thebombzen> I mean whether or not they're funny isn't the same thing as whether or not they're a comedian
[07:37:52 CEST] <furq> wait
[07:37:58 CEST] <furq> were those quotes around comedian important
[07:38:09 CEST] <thebombzen> comedian is a job description
[07:38:20 CEST] <furq> i don't actively dislike jerry seinfeld but i've never really understood why seinfeld is funny
[07:38:35 CEST] <furq> that web series he does is good
[07:38:54 CEST] <furq> comedians in jerry seinfeld's car with jerry seinfeld driving to a coffee shop and getting coffee with jerry seinfeld
[07:38:55 CEST] <james999> well i can't name a british comedian other than john cleese
[07:39:19 CEST] <furq> or rather it's good when he has a good guest on it
[07:39:29 CEST] <furq> which is not difficult
[07:41:08 CEST] <james999> there's a crazy youtube vid I saw the other day
[07:41:14 CEST] <james999> star wars characters die while the seinfeld theme plays
[07:41:24 CEST] <thebombzen> sounds like a youtube video
[07:41:42 CEST] <james999> it's a hilarious theme i'll give it that
[07:46:08 CEST] <james999> Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other," Neil Postman famously wrote in his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. "They do not exchange ideas, they exchange images.
[08:00:47 CEST] <Jeffery> im trying to convert an mp3 to wav (PCM S16 le)
[08:00:52 CEST] <Jeffery> is this wrong?
[08:01:10 CEST] <Jeffery> ffmpeg.exe -i test.mp3 -f s16le -acodec pcm_s16le output.wav
[08:01:28 CEST] <Jeffery> output.wav was large and had no audio
[08:05:27 CEST] <thebombzen> that's because you forced it to be raw signed 16-bit le audio
[08:05:29 CEST] <thebombzen> that's what -f does
[08:05:46 CEST] <thebombzen> -f forces the output format, and s16le means "raw signed 16-bit pcm samples"
[08:05:56 CEST] <Jeffery> ah
[08:06:00 CEST] <thebombzen> Jeffery: in this case you can do ffmpeg -i test.mp3 output.wav
[08:06:11 CEST] <thebombzen> ffmpeg will autodetect the format from the filename (unless you override it with -f)
[08:06:45 CEST] <thebombzen> if the mp3 is already pcm_s16le then you can just do that. if the mp3 isn't and you need the wav to be, then add -c:a pcm_s16le
[08:07:31 CEST] <thebombzen> if you don't need any particular sample format then you can just use "ffmpeg -i test.mp3 output.wav" and that will work
[08:13:23 CEST] <Jeffery> im trying to make wav files for starcraft maps thats why
[08:13:34 CEST] <Jeffery> s16le seems to be the standard
[10:21:04 CEST] <diverdude> is it possible to build ffmpeg on windows using mingw only without having visual studio installed?
[10:28:59 CEST] <tdr> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/CompilationGuide/MinGW .. but even the guide says its easier to cross compile it for windows than to build it native
[15:28:54 CEST] <diverdude> Hello, if i want to build ffmpeg on windows using mingw, how do i then install dependencies such as yasm?
[15:34:55 CEST] <diverdude> anyone?
[15:38:35 CEST] <tdr> thats up to you to find the packages
[15:44:49 CEST] <diverdude> tdr: but i tried finding a yasm exe file...and i found when....but when i try to run it it just says no input file specified....and nothing happens...nothing is installed
[15:45:06 CEST] <JEEB> yes, it requires really no installation
[15:45:17 CEST] <JEEB> I would recommend msys2 for handling a lot of the dependencies
[15:45:26 CEST] <JEEB> since it has a package manager and a separate shell
[15:46:24 CEST] <JEEB> scroll down to msys2 in https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/CompilationGuide/MinGW
[15:48:33 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok i see....if i once manage to compile ffmpeg for windows...and also compile my own ffmpeg program on windows - will users then need to first install any dependencies like msys2 or mingw or anything, or can they just run the exe file and thats it?
[15:49:10 CEST] <JEEB> diverdude: any dependencies depend on how you link them
[15:50:04 CEST] <diverdude> does msys need mingw?
[15:50:15 CEST] <diverdude> *msys2
[15:50:50 CEST] <JEEB> no, but it's a simple way of getting mingw-w64 things
[15:51:01 CEST] <JEEB> msys2 is just an environment by itself with a package manager
[15:51:50 CEST] <diverdude> ahhh very nice
[15:58:22 CEST] <nyuszika7h> is there a way to display the line with the current time ffmpeg is at in the file but other than that only display errors, not the file info at the beginning?
[15:58:30 CEST] <nyuszika7h> other than manually pressing + twice after it starts
[16:28:49 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok...so in msys2, it seems to run in its own filesystem when i open the shell. How can i access the ffmpeg source files i have downloaded?
[16:45:36 CEST] <nyuszika7h> diverdude: if FFmpeg is at C:\FFmpeg for example, just use /c/FFmpeg/bin/ffmpeg.exe
[16:50:10 CEST] <nyuszika7h> why does ffmpeg exit with an exit code of 1 on `-xerror`?
[18:10:44 CEST] <IRCmonkey> How do I get the cli version of ffmpeg to stream subtitles when using rtmp?
[18:11:35 CEST] <IRCmonkey> specifically in cases where the subtitles are not hard coded and are text either in an .srt or muxed in an mkv as text
[18:11:45 CEST] <JEEB> how do you even put subtitles into rtmp?
[18:11:51 CEST] <JEEB> wait what
[18:12:13 CEST] <IRCmonkey> Well, I'd be streaming video as well
[18:12:25 CEST] <furq> yeah i'm pretty sure rtmp doesn't support subs
[18:12:28 CEST] <JEEB> ok, so you have matroska input and you want to stream the video with the subtitles hardcoded
[18:12:36 CEST] <Fenrirthviti> It doesn't, you have to burn the subtitles in ahead of time
[18:12:37 CEST] <IRCmonkey> No
[18:12:38 CEST] <JEEB> is that me guessing correctly? :P
[18:12:43 CEST] <IRCmonkey> The subtitles are not burned in
[18:12:43 CEST] <furq> i hope so
[18:12:48 CEST] <JEEB> well now they are not
[18:12:51 CEST] <Fenrirthviti> Yes, you have you though.
[18:12:54 CEST] <IRCmonkey> and I don't want to go thru the additional ste pf burning them in
[18:13:01 CEST] <furq> the only way to do it is by burning them in
[18:13:04 CEST] <JEEB> ok, then rtmp is not for you
[18:13:06 CEST] <furq> or using a different protocol
[18:13:14 CEST] <JEEB> since rtmp doesn't support subtitles
[18:13:15 CEST] <IRCmonkey> Hmm
[18:13:19 CEST] <JEEB> it's basically FLV
[18:13:23 CEST] <JEEB> and FLV has no subtitles either
[18:13:29 CEST] <Fenrirthviti> not even basically, it is :P
[18:13:32 CEST] <JEEB> well yes
[18:13:37 CEST] <IRCmonkey> So then how is ffmpeg able to burn in subtitles
[18:13:42 CEST] <furq> -vf subtitles or -vf ass
[18:13:49 CEST] <furq> !filter subtitles
[18:13:49 CEST] <nfobot> furq: http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#subtitles-1
[18:14:55 CEST] <IRCmonkey> Hmm
[18:15:40 CEST] <IRCmonkey> So can ffmpeg be used to put the subtitles on to the video, and instead of saving it as a file, just rtmp the content?
[18:15:58 CEST] <JEEB> so you mean hardcoding the subtitles into the video?
[18:16:01 CEST] <furq> yes?
[18:16:10 CEST] <IRCmonkey> sort of, not really
[18:16:13 CEST] <furq> you would do that the same way you're already streaming over rtmp
[18:16:23 CEST] <JEEB> if you are still asking about putting them as separate stream that doesn't fly with FLV
[18:16:27 CEST] <furq> just add -vf subtitles=foo.srt
[18:16:28 CEST] <JEEB> which is the container that is used in RTMP
[18:16:48 CEST] <Fenrirthviti> Someday we'll get a protocol that doesn't suck :(
[18:17:03 CEST] <furq> if you're just remuxing h264/aac to flv and streaming over rtmp, then you'll have to reencode as well
[18:17:03 CEST] <JEEB> I don't think the protocol is the problem
[18:17:14 CEST] <furq> and yeah we have plenty of protocols that are good
[18:17:14 CEST] <JEEB> you can either mpeg-ts or matroska over TCP
[18:17:17 CEST] <furq> just nothing supports them
[18:17:18 CEST] <JEEB> or HTTP
[18:17:19 CEST] <JEEB> or whatever
[18:17:32 CEST] <JEEB> or heck, even fragmented ISOBMFF if you want to
[18:18:01 CEST] <Fenrirthviti> for static files, but that's unstable as hell for live video
[18:18:11 CEST] <JEEB> uhh
[18:18:17 CEST] <JEEB> how?
[18:18:21 CEST] <furq> rtsp is perfectly fine for live video
[18:18:22 CEST] <JEEB> I mean, streams are literally that
[18:18:34 CEST] <JEEB> be it TCP, UDP or HTTP
[18:18:56 CEST] <james999> idk how mpegts works exactly all I know is it works with -vdoec libx264 and aac/mp3 audio
[18:19:01 CEST] <JEEB> I don't see the thing that's "for static files" in any of those
[18:19:08 CEST] <furq> i've had issues with livestreaming mpegts over http, but that's probably got something to do with the fact that i was using ffserver
[18:19:11 CEST] <IRCmonkey> hmmm
[18:19:25 CEST] <JEEB> furq: wow, you've actually had it work?! *gasp*
[18:19:29 CEST] <furq> it did briefly
[18:19:40 CEST] <furq> then it broke again in 0.6
[18:19:50 CEST] <furq> and also it never worked well
[18:20:11 CEST] <JEEB> but yea, it's not the protocol generally
[18:20:13 CEST] <IRCmonkey> So basically I can just somehow, as I'm re encoding the content for rtmp, put in the subtitles into the video
[18:20:13 CEST] <furq> but yeah i had a semi-working config for 0.5 and then it stopped working in 0.6 and i could never fix it
[18:20:33 CEST] <furq> IRCmonkey: if you're already reencoding then it's literally just -vf subtitles=foo.srt
[18:20:36 CEST] <JEEB> IRCmonkey: "into the video" as in "hardcode them into the video" then yes
[18:20:48 CEST] <furq> it'll burn the subtitles into the image
[18:21:00 CEST] <IRCmonkey> Yeah, hard code them into the video is fine, as long as I'm not saving the file permanently anywhere
[18:21:23 CEST] <IRCmonkey> and only streaming it
[18:21:50 CEST] <JEEB> well that's 100% up to how you output
[18:21:58 CEST] <JEEB> if your output is RTMP I don't see how that ends up being a file
[18:22:34 CEST] <IRCmonkey> hmm
[18:37:50 CEST] <james999> rtmp... X_X
[18:38:14 CEST] <james999> I finally got nginx working with the rtmp module on windows, but I couldn't get vlc to play the stream from it.
[18:38:29 CEST] <james999> so kinda feels like a pointless exercise
[18:40:03 CEST] <james999> it's still running in a cmd.exe window too lol. but ima reboot as soon as this large dl finishes
[20:05:37 CEST] <diverdude> hi there, so i installed msys2 on my windows box and installed dependencies using pacman. Then i ran ./configure and make, but only ffmpeg.exe and ffprobe.exe were created. Why did it not build ffplay.exe?
[20:07:01 CEST] <teratorn> diverdude: missing the SDL dependencies probably
[20:08:23 CEST] <diverdude> teratorn: ahh yes ok. can i install SDL using pacman?
[20:08:42 CEST] <teratorn> diverdude: dunno
[20:10:00 CEST] <JEEB> most likely yes but it'll most likely be shared :P
[20:10:14 CEST] <JEEB> depends on what you want from it that might or might not want to be what you want
[20:11:27 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: i basically want to install sdl such that i can build ffplay and distribute it. (This is a test for me to better understand how the build cycle works on windows, i dont really want to distribute it..)
[20:12:23 CEST] <JEEB> basically it's highly possible that what comes out of the package manager is shared, as in it will work but you will just have to package the SDL DLL(s) together with the binary
[20:12:49 CEST] <JEEB> not to mention that you have to take care in how the stuff you're building against was configured if you're taking it from a third party
[20:13:05 CEST] <JEEB> (and of course if you build yourself you should know what licensing you are signing up against)
[20:13:28 CEST] <JEEB> this goes for all open source that you are going to distribute, as the licenses usually have clauses for that
[20:14:50 CEST] <JEEB> I'm pretty sure SDL2's license is OK, but just keep in mind with regards to the future :P . because at the very least you have to publish the sources for FFmpeg itself (LGPL), and if you build with something like libx264 that is GPL the whole thing becomes GPL (and thus even the stuff you build on top of FFmpeg are required to be available under GPL as well)
[20:14:59 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok i see....so is it possible to have it not shared, such that the libs are statically linked in the exe file?
[20:15:25 CEST] <JEEB> yes, but if the package manager doesn't have that available you will have to build it yourself
[20:16:07 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: yeah, but i will have to distribute the code to my client anyway, and they just use the software inhouse
[20:16:55 CEST] <JEEB> also do you even need ffplay for anything :P
[20:17:02 CEST] <JEEB> I mean, there are actual video players
[20:17:17 CEST] <JEEB> if you can live without SDL2 I recommend you do
[20:17:29 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: no i dont....but its almost what i need....its a good start for me..i will build on that example to make something with more functionalities
[20:18:07 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok, why is it better to live without SDL?
[20:18:20 CEST] <JEEB> it's only used for ffplay and ffplay is on the level of almost useless
[20:18:34 CEST] <JEEB> grabbing a binary of mpv or vlc is often a much better alternative
[20:18:46 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok, why is that?
[20:18:49 CEST] <JEEB> if you are using SDL for some embedded thing unrelated to FFmpeg's ffplay or something like that, then that's fine
[20:19:05 CEST] <JEEB> but saying that ffplay is just a piece of crap as far as a player goes :P
[20:19:33 CEST] <JEEB> also even if your customer is going to use something in-house you still have to (or would be better to) explain how the licenses the software you're using for your own software work
[20:19:40 CEST] <teratorn> I find ffplay pretty highly useful from time to time.. but I guess if I knew how to pass ffmpeg options to vlc that might be different.. for e.g. playing raw video
[20:20:00 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: i have to build a UI which interfaces with a 12MP camera over ethernet, and displays stuff on a videoplay - with possibility to save videos encoded.... so i need both a canvas to draw images and a codec operator....and a gui framework
[20:20:01 CEST] <furq> i just use mpv for that
[20:20:02 CEST] <JEEB> so that the (L)GPL doesn't come as a surprise to your customer :P
[20:20:28 CEST] <furq> if i want to test a filter output or something like that i just pipe y4m or nut to mpv
[20:20:45 CEST] <furq> it's better for that than ffplay is
[20:20:46 CEST] <JEEB> right, let's just say that ffplay shouldn't be used as an example for any professional video rendering solution :P
[20:20:56 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: yeah absolutely agreed...of course i will explain the license
[20:21:30 CEST] <JEEB> in open source mpv's opengl renderer (which is currently being made into a library with a working name "libplacebo") is the least bad video renderer
[20:21:30 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok....so you would grab VLC source instead and use that?
[20:21:39 CEST] <furq> i'd probably use libmpv
[20:21:53 CEST] <furq> but you don't need to build ffplay to look at its source
[20:22:05 CEST] <furq> and if you're using a different gui framework then you're not going to have any use for sdl
[20:22:23 CEST] <JEEB> and yea, for playback libvlc or libmpv are the things
[20:22:30 CEST] <diverdude> furq: no...i am just using ffplay to learn about the build system and how i can distribute an ffmpeg program
[20:22:36 CEST] <JEEB> (do note that mpv is currently still GPL)
[20:22:54 CEST] <JEEB> so if GPL is a no-go then of course libvlc
[20:22:57 CEST] <furq> vlc is gpl2 isn't it
[20:23:01 CEST] <JEEB> libvlc is LGPL
[20:23:01 CEST] <furq> or is libvlc different
[20:23:06 CEST] <furq> fair enough
[20:23:12 CEST] <JEEB> then some modules are GPL I think, although most of them are LGPL
[20:23:18 CEST] <JEEB> the end result ends up GPL due to libx264 etc
[20:23:47 CEST] <JEEB> just like most FFmpeg builds, which have libx264
[20:24:06 CEST] <diverdude> yeah true
[20:24:26 CEST] <furq> both of those are quite heavy
[20:24:35 CEST] <diverdude> but GPL basically just states that i have to distribute code together with my program right?
[20:24:41 CEST] <furq> if you have simple needs then it might be better to roll your own thing
[20:24:44 CEST] <JEEB> your whole thing must ALSO be available under GPL
[20:24:45 CEST] <JEEB> that's GPL
[20:24:46 CEST] <furq> and no, that's what lgpl requires
[20:25:06 CEST] <JEEB> LGPL requires you to only publish the LGPL software's sources
[20:25:07 CEST] <furq> gpl requires you to make everything that links to it gpl
[20:25:14 CEST] <furq> which means releasing the source
[20:25:24 CEST] <JEEB> to the part that got the binary, yes
[20:25:32 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: ok, so if i make a program which is GPL and use it just for myself i have to put it online for everyone to download?
[20:25:37 CEST] <furq> no
[20:25:37 CEST] <JEEB> no
[20:25:51 CEST] <furq> you're only obliged to publish the source if you publish binaries
[20:26:06 CEST] <JEEB> basically every time you give out binaries you also give all the sources
[20:26:08 CEST] <diverdude> ok, and only to the people i publish binaries to right?
[20:26:14 CEST] <JEEB> that's the least problematic way of handling it
[20:26:18 CEST] <furq> yeah
[20:26:25 CEST] <diverdude> yeah....but thats not really a problem
[20:26:32 CEST] <JEEB> although I think GPL states that you would have to give the sources within five years or something if you get asked
[20:26:36 CEST] <furq> if you publish binaries then just publish all the sources in the same place
[20:26:41 CEST] <teratorn> consider yourself encouraged to inflict more awful SaaSS on the world
[20:26:57 CEST] <furq> by which i mean publish all the sources, don't just publish your source and then link to ffmpeg's git
[20:27:04 CEST] <furq> you need to mirror every library you use
[20:27:08 CEST] <diverdude> furq: right ok
[20:27:30 CEST] <furq> which is a little dumb in today's world where everything is on github, but shrug
[20:27:47 CEST] <JEEB> basically if this is corporate software you just give the whole package/installer and tell the customer that it has to be given in that way to others
[20:27:48 CEST] <furq> i guess people can always delete repos
[20:27:54 CEST] <JEEB> yea
[20:27:58 CEST] <diverdude> furq: are there actually any good alternative libraries to ffmpeg with a less restrictive license?
[20:28:04 CEST] <furq> ffmpeg is lgpl
[20:28:13 CEST] <furq> it's only gpl if you include gpl libraries like x264
[20:28:16 CEST] <JEEB> FFmpeg is LGPL, it only becomes GPL if you enable GPL things
[20:28:28 CEST] <furq> and obviously if you need x264 or any other gpl library, you're stuck with the gpl regardless of what wrapper you use
[20:28:29 CEST] <JEEB> you specifically are required to set --enable-gpl in configure
[20:28:55 CEST] <diverdude> yeah
[20:28:58 CEST] <JEEB> so in that sense FFmpeg is pretty liberally licensed
[20:29:08 CEST] <diverdude> and x264 is kinda a necessity today
[20:29:08 CEST] <JEEB> it's usually third party things that are less liberal
[20:29:22 CEST] <JEEB> uhh
[20:29:24 CEST] <JEEB> if you mean H.264 decoding
[20:29:26 CEST] <JEEB> that's LGPL
[20:29:30 CEST] <JEEB> libx264 is an encoder
[20:29:48 CEST] <JEEB> also libx264 is dual licensed, you can buy a license from x264 LLC if you don't want to follow the GPL
[20:30:00 CEST] <furq> you don't need gpl libs for decoding any format iirc
[20:30:16 CEST] <furq> only a couple of obscure formats need external libs for decoding, and they're all bsd licensed iirc
[20:30:26 CEST] <furq> or equivalent
[20:30:28 CEST] <utack> some 4k, 10bit, 60fps H265 videos work now. great work with the faster decoding, that was not possible two versions ago at all
[20:30:36 CEST] <diverdude> yeah but i ned to encode videos
[20:30:44 CEST] <diverdude> and save them to disk
[20:30:52 CEST] <furq> you could use libvpx
[20:30:57 CEST] <JEEB> lol
[20:31:12 CEST] <furq> it's not ideal but it is free
[20:31:44 CEST] <JEEB> diverdude: if you need good AVC encoding as in you doing it instead of just getting AVC from the camera, then if you cannot follow GPL I'd just tell you to license it :P
[20:31:49 CEST] <diverdude> hmmm it creates webx videos
[20:32:00 CEST] <JEEB> (or use one of the HW encoders if you don't really care about high compression)
[20:32:55 CEST] <JEEB> FFmpeg has plenty of those supported
[20:33:00 CEST] <diverdude> the camera does not stream AVC...i just streams raw frames actually
[20:33:05 CEST] <diverdude> i=it
[20:33:07 CEST] <JEEB> yeh
[20:33:24 CEST] <JEEB> anyways you'll want to think about things, there's plenty of alternatives around FFmpeg
[20:34:02 CEST] <diverdude> JEEB: but sounds like i will always have to comply with GPL except if i buy a commercial license
[20:34:23 CEST] <furq> well there's openh264
[20:34:26 CEST] <furq> that's not good quality though
[20:34:42 CEST] <furq> and there's qsv/nvenc if you can guarantee your customer has them
[20:34:56 CEST] <JEEB> diverdude: with libx264 yes, since libx264 is a GPL library with the open source license being GPL
[20:36:00 CEST] <JEEB> and yea, qsv and nvenc are what I meant with the HW encoders, and why I said that there's plenty of alternatives
[20:36:14 CEST] <diverdude> but ok...libvlc might be very interesting to use
[20:37:12 CEST] <JEEB> anyways, you would in any case have to do some sort of source release. so I recommend you give it a good few days to think about your side of requirements for any open source software you'll be using, is GPL OK or not etc
[20:37:37 CEST] <diverdude> aha....nvenc looks really nice actually
[20:37:59 CEST] <JEEB> the newer things are rather nice, there's even lossless coding
[20:38:36 CEST] <JEEB> also just in case, keep away from anything that requires enable-nonfree in FFmpeg
[20:38:40 CEST] <JEEB> since that means it cannot be distributed
[20:38:55 CEST] <diverdude> i see, very interesting
[20:39:22 CEST] <diverdude> nvenc does not require enable-nonfree in FFmpeg i think
[20:39:27 CEST] <JEEB> yea, I don't think it does
[20:39:31 CEST] <JEEB> my comment was pretty general
[20:39:43 CEST] <diverdude> right
[20:39:54 CEST] <JEEB> enable-nonfree just means that something has a license that isn't compatible with (L)GPL and thus the combined work cannot be distributed
[20:41:12 CEST] <BtbN> nvenc is not an alternative to x264 at all
[20:41:41 CEST] <diverdude> hmmm but venc is very neat, because i have to use the processor to do processing on each frame - object identification and such
[20:42:09 CEST] <diverdude> BtbN: ok, why is that?
[20:47:18 CEST] <diverdude> sorry, i got diconnected
[20:48:27 CEST] <diverdude> why is nvenc not an alternative?
[20:50:27 CEST] <JEEB> depends on the use case most likely. x264 is a versatile encoder while nvenc is specific to use cases where compression capabilities don't matter that much
[20:51:39 CEST] <JEEB> for example I use nvenc to encode screen captures to lossless h.264. in that case the compression bit being as much as with x264 doesn't matter too nuch
[20:51:43 CEST] <JEEB> *much
[20:52:46 CEST] <BtbN> Because you need an nvidia card for it, and it's quality is horrible compares to x264
[21:05:18 CEST] <diverdude> BtbN: ok....so the nvenc encoder is not as optimal as x264?
[21:05:53 CEST] <BtbN> it's a hardware encoder. won't ever be as efficient
[21:06:07 CEST] <diverdude> BtbN: but much faster i would think?
[21:06:18 CEST] <BtbN> well, depends on the CPU
[21:06:42 CEST] <diverdude> BtbN: ok...because CPU has to offload data....and that speed depends on the CPU?
[21:07:47 CEST] <BtbN> x264 is purely a software encoder. The CPU is the only thing that matters
[00:00:00 CEST] --- Sun Apr 30 2017