Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Graphics Media Open Source News Technology

FFmpeg Announces High-Performance VP8 Decoder 80

An anonymous reader writes "Three FFmpeg developers — Ronald Bultje, David Conrad, and x264 developer Jason Garrett-Glaser — have written the first independent, free implementation of a VP8 video decoder. Benchmarks show that it's as much as 65% faster than Google's official libvpx. The announcement also gives a taste of what went into the development process, as well as the optimization techniques used. Currently it's only fully optimized on x86, but ARM and PowerPC optimizations are next in line for development."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FFmpeg Announces High-Performance VP8 Decoder

Comments Filter:
  • Spec' Writing Course (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Saturday July 24, 2010 @09:23AM (#33012944)

    As someone who spends most of their work day implementing someone else's specifications I know exactly where they are coming from. I honestly cannot tell if people are bad at writing spec's because they're simply lazy or if they need to be trained to document their file formats completely.

    When I think back to my University days we never really learned how to write a specification and wonder if that wouldn't be a course worth teaching. Perhaps you get the students to write a program that outputs a set of complex information into a format, and then get them to write an end to end specification to both read and write that format.

    My favourite moments are when you realise that the current implementation not only doesn't follow the spec' but directly contracts it (e.g. A "bool" that can be TRUE, FALSE, "", "null", or "nan").

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 24, 2010 @09:35AM (#33013010)

    I usually rip my DVDs to ~1.2GiB Xvid avi files at native res using mencoder (not reencoding the audio), and have been doing this for many years. Does anyone know what combination of muxer and audio/video codecs is preferred nowadays? I'm thinking of using Matroska with Vorbis for audio but I'm completely lost as to what video codec to use. As for which tools to use, I find most of what I need in the Debian repositories but I'm open to suggestions.

    Also, I prefer quality over size but over 1.2GiB for a 90 minutes DVD is too much IMHO.

  • by fandingo ( 1541045 ) on Saturday July 24, 2010 @11:01AM (#33013478)

    That's sort of what I do, but I would like to watch my DVDs on a dedicated device, which doesn't support ISOs.

    I have a 3TB RAID array that I'm just beginning to populate. I rip the full ISO, and then rip the videos (usually TV episodes) into h.264+aac in mp4. I used to use mkv, but it doesn't have good device support. I use a UPnP server on my Linux box to share with my PS3, which works great. Also, mp4 (really m4v) is great for iDevices as well, so I have that flexibility if I want.

    I encode with handbrake, which is ok, although I'm not happy with the Linux support. Since it's so Mac-centric, there isn't any support for the most recent release of Gnome (so no distros released after March 2010 work), so I have to run a dev version. I want really high quality encodes. I get pretty much perfect quality from the encodes and they run about 600-800MB/hr for film; animation is all over the place, but quality is good: 280-600MB/hr.

    I don't plan to delete the ISOs until my disk space is full. This way if technology changes, then I can still encode from source rather than from another encode.

    That being said, I think that h.264 will be around for many years.

  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Saturday July 24, 2010 @11:54AM (#33013834) Homepage Journal

    If it produces adequate results, then I for one will use it simply because of the stance it takes with regards to patent encumbrance. To me that is perfectly sufficient, because I'm not trying to create any HD video... yet? I don't want to get into building disk farms. Anyway, I shouldn't have to worry about things like whether the camera that says pro on it has a professional H.264 license associated with it, or whether the video editing software whose name ends in pro has a professional H.264 license... but last I heard, there were rather high-profile examples of each indeed not having same. This is not something that I want to have to worry about. Indeed, I would say that an intellectual property law system which permits this to become something you have to worry about is broken as designed.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...