Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
libav vs ffmpeg
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Multimedia
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LiquidAcid
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

joecool wrote:
Their website contained no mention of it being a fork of the original ffmpeg project and instead duped users into thinking it was a rename of the ffmpeg project.

This is complete nonsense. There is an entire section on the website for this:
http://libav.org/about.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supperskidvn
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Sep 2012
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ffmpeg emphasizes features while libav emphasizes stability. For the most part, you'll find ffmpeg can do more than libav, but that more tends to be buggy. Basically it's "bleeding edge vs. stable." Honestly unless you're concerned with the gritty details of their media handling (most likely not) or need one of the features ffmpeg provides but libav doesn't (most likely not) then it really doesn't matter. They're nearly identical as far as API goes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaggyStyle
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

supperskidvn wrote:
Ffmpeg emphasizes features while libav emphasizes stability. For the most part, you'll find ffmpeg can do more than libav, but that more tends to be buggy. Basically it's "bleeding edge vs. stable." Honestly unless you're concerned with the gritty details of their media handling (most likely not) or need one of the features ffmpeg provides but libav doesn't (most likely not) then it really doesn't matter. They're nearly identical as far as API goes.


I think it is reverse, libav is for features and ffmpeg is for stability, the example for that is ffmpeg-mt which the lead developer of ffmepg didn't wanted to include while the rest did, in the end after the fork, libav included it and later on (as ffmpeg's maintainer merges changes from libav to ffmpeg) ffmpeg received it too.
_________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xywa
l33t
l33t


Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 812
Location: /mnt/Gentoo/

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there any chance to have any new ffmpeg in portage tree (not hard-masked) this year?

0.11.1 is still hard masked and it was published over 4 months ago.
Now 1.0 was published but in Gentoo we still have only an old 0.10.5.

If there is any time and money related problem, we could do Fundraising Campaign like kdenlive did:
http://www.indiegogo.com/kdenlive-re
so everybody will be happy 8)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaggyStyle
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xywa wrote:
Is there any chance to have any new ffmpeg in portage tree (not hard-masked) this year?

0.11.1 is still hard masked and it was published over 4 months ago.
Now 1.0 was published but in Gentoo we still have only an old 0.10.5.

If there is any time and money related problem, we could do Fundraising Campaign like kdenlive did:
http://www.indiegogo.com/kdenlive-re
so everybody will be happy 8)


as one of the gentoo devs is part of the group that took over the project and later forked it, I highly doubt that any Fundraising Campaign for ffmpeg will be officially supported by gentoo.
_________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 1546

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xywa, DaggyStyle ...

I really don't think this has anything to do with the fact that certain gentoo devs are involved with libav, ffmpeg-1.0 was available in portage only a day after its release, and you can quite easily unmask it. Doing so however will cause mplayer2 (and quite possibly other packages) to fail to build, and it would seem quite right that this is kept out of ~arch for that very reason.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaggyStyle
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
Xywa, DaggyStyle ...

I really don't think this has anything to do with the fact that certain gentoo devs are involved with libav, ffmpeg-1.0 was available in portage only a day after its release, and you can quite easily unmask it. Doing so however will cause mplayer2 (and quite possibly other packages) to fail to build, and it would seem quite right that this is kept out of ~arch for that very reason.

best ... khay

read my post again, it has nothing to do with the status of ffmpeg in portage.
_________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 1546

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:
read my post again, it has nothing to do with the status of ffmpeg in portage.

DaggyStyle ... if you quote the whole post then I assume your responding to what you quote, similarly if I write, "Xywa, DaggyStyle" then the "this" I refer to is both the question of ffmpegs' status and the possible reasons for that status. Now, you "[...] doubt [a] Fundraising Campaign for ffmpeg will be officially supported by gentoo" due to there being "gentoo devs" whos involvement with libav would prevent this, if true, then this implies that besides explicity opposing fundraising, other opposition is in place, or are you simply saying that you could only forsee it effecting fundraising?

So, your statement has everything to do with the status of ffmpeg.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Etal
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 1639

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Xywa, DaggyStyle ...

I really don't think this has anything to do with the fact that certain gentoo devs are involved with libav, ffmpeg-1.0 was available in portage only a day after its release, and you can quite easily unmask it. Doing so however will cause mplayer2 (and quite possibly other packages) to fail to build, and it would seem quite right that this is kept out of ~arch for that very reason.

best ... khay

read my post again, it has nothing to do with the status of ffmpeg in portage.


Your post is wrong.

This is not Debian where one maintainer's decision will influence which implementation is used. Gentoo is about choice. Just because we have a few guys who work on OpenRC does not mean that systemd will not be updated regularly, or that the systemd maintainer does work that somehow undermines their efforts.

According to this thread, Gentoo Foundation actually is not short on money.

The reason why FFMPEG 1.0 is not in testing, as khayyam, said is simple:

Code:
# emerge -pq =media-video/ffmpeg-1.0
[ebuild     U ] media-video/ffmpeg-1.0 [0.10.4]

The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
#required by =media-video/ffmpeg-1.0 (argument)
# /usr/portage/tree/gentoo/profiles/package.mask:
# Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> (26 May 2012)
# API/ABI has changed with this release.
# Mask until the tree is fine.
# https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417677
=media-video/ffmpeg-1.0


It's just down to testing and fixing any broken packages, just as with any other packages like for example glibc 2.16 or gcc 4.7.

So if you don't have any of these packages installed, you can help by unmasking and installing it, and reporting new issues, if any.
_________________
“And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.”– Hillary Clinton, Jan. 21, 2010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaggyStyle
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
DaggyStyle wrote:
read my post again, it has nothing to do with the status of ffmpeg in portage.

DaggyStyle ... if you quote the whole post then I assume your responding to what you quote, similarly if I write, "Xywa, DaggyStyle" then the "this" I refer to is both the question of ffmpegs' status and the possible reasons for that status. Now, you "[...] doubt [a] Fundraising Campaign for ffmpeg will be officially supported by gentoo" due to there being "gentoo devs" whos involvement with libav would prevent this, if true, then this implies that besides explicity opposing fundraising, other opposition is in place, or are you simply saying that you could only forsee it effecting fundraising?

So, your statement has everything to do with the status of ffmpeg.

best ... khay

you really need to pay attention to what people write and not what they quote.

Etal wrote:
DaggyStyle wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Xywa, DaggyStyle ...

I really don't think this has anything to do with the fact that certain gentoo devs are involved with libav, ffmpeg-1.0 was available in portage only a day after its release, and you can quite easily unmask it. Doing so however will cause mplayer2 (and quite possibly other packages) to fail to build, and it would seem quite right that this is kept out of ~arch for that very reason.

best ... khay

read my post again, it has nothing to do with the status of ffmpeg in portage.


Your post is wrong.

This is not Debian where one maintainer's decision will influence which implementation is used. Gentoo is about choice. Just because we have a few guys who work on OpenRC does not mean that systemd will not be updated regularly, or that the systemd maintainer does work that somehow undermines their efforts.

According to this thread, Gentoo Foundation actually is not short on money.

how this has any relation to what I wrote, all I've said is that as one of the gentoo devs was part of the group that took control over ffmpeg before it was forked, I highly doubt it that gentoo will officially support the Fundraising Campaign because that specific dev will most probably object to it because ffmpeg is still maintained by the same guy which caused the takeover in the first place.
_________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Etal
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 1639

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:
how this has any relation to what I wrote, all I've said is that as one of the gentoo devs was part of the group that took control over ffmpeg before it was forked, I highly doubt it that gentoo will officially support the Fundraising Campaign because that specific dev will most probably object to it because ffmpeg is still maintained by the same guy which caused the takeover in the first place.


My point is that just because some one guy is working on both Gentoo and Libav, it does not matter. He's neither on the council nor the board of trustees. He might get pissed, but he has no power to prevent a fundraiser or whatever if it was considered necessary by others.

My next point is that the whole idea of a fundraiser is pretty pointless considering the ffmpeg-1.0 mask is pretty run-of-the mill. It will be unmasked eventually, once the software using it gets fixed.
_________________
“And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.”– Hillary Clinton, Jan. 21, 2010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 1546

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:
you really need to pay attention to what people write and not what they quote.

DaggyStyle ... respond to the question, are you really "saying that you could only forsee it effecting fundraising?". You can skirt the issue by saying "well thats not what I said", but unless your claim is that such a "dev" would only effect a fundrasing campaign, then what was implied by what was said is clear.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cehoyos
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:
supperskidvn wrote:
Ffmpeg emphasizes features while libav emphasizes stability. For the most part, you'll find ffmpeg can do more than libav, but that more tends to be buggy. Basically it's "bleeding edge vs. stable." Honestly unless you're concerned with the gritty details of their media handling (most likely not) or need one of the features ffmpeg provides but libav doesn't (most likely not) then it really doesn't matter. They're nearly identical as far as API goes.


I think it is reverse, libav is for features and ffmpeg is for stability, the example for that is ffmpeg-mt which the lead developer of ffmepg didn't wanted to include while the rest did, in the end after the fork, libav included it and later on (as ffmpeg's maintainer merges changes from libav to ffmpeg) ffmpeg received it too.

I think this should be clarified:
ffmpeg-mt was never posted for inclusion in FFmpeg, so the lead developer of FFmpeg neither opposed an inclusion nor did he "not want it", it was simply never suggested due to bugs in ffmpeg-mt that also affected single-core decoding (earlier inclusion would have meant that known regressions were introduced reproducible with both single-threaded and multi-threaded execution). Some time after the failed takeover of FFmpeg, Michael Niedermayer (the FFmpeg main developer) fixed those bugs and merged ffmpeg-mt. The merge was later repeated for the fork.
The misunderstanding about the question if the fork contains more features or is more stable comes due to the fact that the people who originally tried the takeover and later forked FFmpeg claimed that Michael's refusal for including many new features into FFmpeg was a reason for the fork. When FFmpeg supporters later explained that the fork contains less features, it was explained that the fork only includes carefully tested patches (please note the irony carefully hidden in the last part of the sentence).
Since several hundred fixed tickets from the FFmpeg bug tracker are still reproducible with avconv / aplay I agree that FFmpeg actually is the more stable project, I just don't agree that it contains less features and the large number of regressions in libav over FFmpeg makes me wonder if it really "doesn't matter" which one to use.

Please note that I am in no way impartial regarding above claims, I am on the contrary one of the most involved people, so please do not trust me, instead read the announcement about the ffmpeg-mt merge yourself:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/129927
And then please consider testing a not too small number of fixed tickets from trac with the fork:
https://ffmpeg.org/trac/ffmpeg/query?status=closed&resolution=fixed&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=component&col=version&order=modified&desc=1
(You could also test open tickets from FFmpeg and closed tickets from the libav bugtracker but you will not see many differences there, a few open bugs on the libav bugtracker that are fixed in FFmpeg exist though.)
If you want to do even more research, you could scan FFmpeg commits for the string 'Mateusz "j00ru" Jurczyk and Gynvael Coldwind', it marks potential security issues found by these two security researchers, and check if the issues are also fixed in libav.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 2207
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found something noteworthy in the news last week: as far as the CVE database is concerned, current libav is equivalent to "FFmpeg before 0.11". Everyone using libav releases is half a year behind on patches for real, publicised security vulnerabilities.

Nice to see Linux is finally catching up to Windows — we've got our own ActiveX now... :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulBredbury
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 7310

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
half a year behind on patches for real, publicised security vulnerabilities.

Are you sure about this? Which patches?

LWN says that Ubuntu's libav 6:0.8.4-0ubuntu0.12.10.1 is OK, and if one looks at the Debian diff, there are NO security-related patches in the debian/patches/ dir.

Ubuntu have simply upgraded from their patched 0.8.3 to relatively-unpatched 0.8.4.

Conclusion: libav 0.8.4 is OK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 2207
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PaulBredbury wrote:
Ubuntu have simply upgraded from their patched 0.8.3 to relatively-unpatched 0.8.4.

Conclusion: libav 0.8.4 is OK.

As of 2012-11-06, yes it has caught up. The Ubuntu changelog between 0.8.3-1 and 0.8.4 says nothing at all about security though, apart from 3 unrelated fixes (also 6 months ago).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2379
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

8O Since we are moving to libav as the default codec provider
Who is we ?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2000
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aCOSwt wrote:
8O Since we are moving to libav as the default codec provider
Who is we ?


The media-video@ team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2379
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
aCOSwt wrote:
8O Since we are moving to libav as the default codec provider
Who is we ?


The media-video@ team.

Thanks for clarifying.

I had understood this move as some kind of scarabeus' diktat
indeed supported by lu_zero
but challenged by aballier

So... I was a little...confused. :?

While I am not knowledgeable enough to give any valuable technical opinion about this, I do want to highlight and greet aballier's attitude :
Quote:
I use it, will continue to use and maintain it, and will support people that want the default back to FFmpeg

In a world in which well working packages are so easily deprecated, that attitude does give considerably more credit to an opinion.

What about the diktat of sc^Homeone who, in a recent past, has been threatening to drop his support for some package if the community did not contribute financially to his new shiny hardware and additionally makes me and a couple of others, part of what he considers as being a
Quote:
sh*tload of people
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Thank you alexis ! You rule !
_________________


Last edited by aCOSwt on Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2000
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

aCOSwt wrote:
ssuominen wrote:
aCOSwt wrote:
8O Since we are moving to libav as the default codec provider
Who is we ?


The media-video@ team.

Thanks for clarifying.

I had understood this move as some kind of scarabeus' diktat
indeed supported by lu_zero
but challenged by aballier

So... I was a little...confused. :?

While I am not knowledgeable enough to give any valuable technical opinion about this, I do want to highlight and greet aballier's attitude :
Quote:
I use it, will continue to use and maintain it, and will support people that want the default back to FFmpeg


In a world in which well working packages are so easily deprecated, that attitude does give considerably more credit to an opinion.

What about the opinion of sc^Homeone who, in a recent past, has been threatening to drop his support for some package if the community did not contribute financially to his new shiny hardware and additionally makes me part of what he considers as being a
Quote:
sh*tload of people
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Thank you alexis !


The switch in the virtual/ffmpeg to prefer libav was indeed done in secret. Other members of the team didn't know about it. I'm also committed in keeping my packages working with ffmpeg, not libav.
I don't see myself switching anytime soon. This might change, but ffmpeg is still the one. The one that is more compatible with in-portage packages and the one you hit least issues with.
Based on the bugspam I'm seeing everyday wrt ffmpeg and libav. Someone would reply here that "Hey, I've fixed it for latest libav, now it also works with latest ffmpeg." which is actually true
in many cases, but not all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toralf
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 2614
Location: Hamburg/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a user which uses only Kaffeine and mplayer it seems to make no differences, both ffmpeg and libav works - maybe there's less noisy output of mplayer + libav at the console - but I might be wrong in that point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ottre
n00b
n00b


Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

toralf wrote:
As a user which uses only Kaffeine and mplayer it seems to make no differences, both ffmpeg and libav works - maybe there's less noisy output of mplayer + libav at the console - but I might be wrong in that point.


I asked about this in the #mplayer2 IRC chan the other day.

mplayer2 is developed using libav, so naturally it's more stable with libav than ffmpeg. You get the same video playback performance.

Since I've been using libav I've only noticed my CPU usage rocketing up on 1 occasion. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it used to happen a lot more frequently (often when seeking in a video) with ffmpeg.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2000
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ottre wrote:
toralf wrote:
As a user which uses only Kaffeine and mplayer it seems to make no differences, both ffmpeg and libav works - maybe there's less noisy output of mplayer + libav at the console - but I might be wrong in that point.


I asked about this in the #mplayer2 IRC chan the other day.

mplayer2 is developed using libav, so naturally it's more stable with libav than ffmpeg. You get the same video playback performance.

Since I've been using libav I've only noticed my CPU usage rocketing up on 1 occasion. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it used to happen a lot more frequently (often when seeking in a video) with ffmpeg.


mplayer2 is just an another fork and it lacks mencoder and doesn't bring in much of anything mplayer original doesn't. to be clear, it's not an upgrade over mplayer1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ottre
n00b
n00b


Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:

mplayer2 is just an another fork and it lacks mencoder and doesn't bring in much of anything mplayer original doesn't. to be clear, it's not an upgrade over mplayer1.


That's your opinion. I don't see what it has to do with the libav vs ffmpeg stability question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ottre wrote:
ssuominen wrote:

mplayer2 is just an another fork and it lacks mencoder and doesn't bring in much of anything mplayer original doesn't. to be clear, it's not an upgrade over mplayer1.


That's your opinion.

Dropping important functionality does not deserve the name "upgrade". It is a fork with a different intention. It would be nice if one could install both players in parellel, but this is currently not supported under gentoo.
Quote:
I don't see what it has to do with the libav vs ffmpeg stability question.

mplayer1 does not work with libav. Currently, a kind soul from gentoo has patched the stable version, but I would not make any bets that newer versions of mplayer1 will run with libav. At least, saying is that mplayer1 upstream intentionally does not support libav and does not accept patches making it work with both.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Multimedia All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum