[FFmpeg-devel] Intel IPP H264 encoder

[Jason Garrett-Glaser]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Erik Van Grunderbeeck <erik at arawix.com> wrote:
>> Tested compare
>>
>> o) X264, snapshot-20091017-2245, build 77, MingW compiled
>> o) Intel IPP 6.1 H264, libs 5.1 (my license), Intel compiler 11 compiled.
>>
>> Encoded as base profile, level 13, no b frames (I know, but that's the
> ipod
>> format and most people seem to encode for that).
>>
>> o) X264: 2.32 seconds (mean average on 5 runs)
>> o) Intel IPP: 2.25 seconds (mean average on 5 runs)
>
>>Settings? ?Samples? ?Input? ?Output? ?There's zero information in your
> post.
>
> Output: base profile, level 13, no b frames.
> Input: wmv, 320x240
>
> You can call that zero information I suppose. There's also zero information
> in your question. What does settings mean? Samples? (bitrate? Quality?
> Container? The amount of sugar in my coffee?)

If you don't know what "encoder settings" means, I give up.

It's zero information because the speed of an encode means nothing
without the settings that encode was made at.

> Your (L-)GLP license statement makes little sense btw (as the IPP encoders
> do not need to be compiled into the Libav* dll's. Unless you want to take
> "viral" to a new level). "My license" refers to the part one purchases from
> Intel (the binaries).

If you compile ffmpeg against the Intel libraries, it is no longer
LGPL.  That's why compiling against libfaac, even via dynamic linking,
requires --enable-nonfree.  You seem to know very little about
software licenses; I suggest you speak to a lawyer.

> Sigh. Trying to suggest/state anything on this mailing list that touches the
> [zealot] opinions of people is hopeless.

Sometimes, when everyone disagrees with you, it's not because everyone
else is "dumb" or a "zealot", but rather because you're wrong.

Dark Shikari