digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)
-   -   FFMPEG: Ffmpeg and windows, where are we now ? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/7410-ffmpeg-ffmpeg-windows.html)

Dialhot 12-29-2003 02:43 PM

FFMPEG: Ffmpeg and windows, where are we now ?
 
Hi all,

Some times ago Kwag (I guess :?:) released a windows version of ffmpeg. I tested it but I droped it because th soft was still too buggy.

Were are we now ? Is it possible to have a windows version of the last linux ffmeg version up to date ?

Thank you.

kwag 12-29-2003 03:38 PM

Hi Phil,

ffmpeg is still at version 0.4.8 :?
http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/

-kwag

Dialhot 12-29-2003 03:49 PM

If I understand well, that's the version you still released for windows weeks ago ?

But, if that version is so bugged, how people here can use it for making KVCD ? It seems that at least russianexpart uses it.

I surely missed something ;-)

kwag 12-29-2003 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dialhot
If I understand well, that's the version you still released for windows weeks ago ?

Yep.
Quote:


But, if that version is so bugged, how people here can use it for making KVCD ?
I don't know, because I certainly can't use it :mrgreen:
Unless it's for viewing on the PC, because it's a muxing mess :!:
Quote:

It seems that at least russianexpart uses it.

I surely missed something ;-)
Good question ;)

-kwag

ak47 12-29-2003 03:59 PM

First off I didn't have a problem with FFmpeg 0.4.8 it might have been a bug in the compiling of windows. But russianexpart uses mplayer (mencoder) to encoder the video and ffmpeg for the audio, but i think ffmpeg is obsolete now with mplayer 1.0pre3.

Edit: russianexpat uses a script to process the video and audio separately then puts it though a different muxer.

Dialhot 12-29-2003 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak47
Edit: russianexpat uses a script to process the video and audio separately then puts it though a different muxer.

That explains all. So it's not today that I will benefit from the ffmpeg's speed :cry:

ak47 12-29-2003 04:47 PM

Why not.

Link http://www.knoppix.net/
Or my favorite http://overclockix.octeams.com/

Dialhot 12-29-2003 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak47
Why not.

I have a lot of reasons to not use a PC for running any Unix (or Unix-like) system but I won't explain them here ( And that's surely not a CDware version that will convince me I'm wrong :-)). But that's not the problem.

The real problem there is that my PC is on 24/7 for doing a lot of things and I don't want to switch it off just to encode a video. That's why I was looking a reliable ffmpeg windows version. But it does not exist, so I'll continue without it.

ak47 12-29-2003 06:08 PM

Quote:

I have a lot of reasons to not use a PC for running any Unix (or Unix-like) system but I won't explain them here ( And that's surely not a CDware version that will convince me I'm wrong ). But that's not the problem.
I am not going to try to convince you to go to Linux because I think that won't work since you kind of stated that.
Quote:

The real problem there is that my PC is on 24/7 for doing a lot of things and I don't want to switch it off just to encode a video. That's why I was looking a reliable ffmpeg windows version. But it does not exist, so I'll continue without it.
But I felt the same way, I am always download, encoding, or school work. But when I actually tried Linux and saw its potential (mpeg-1 video with an average bit rate of ~500kbs that almost looks like the original DVD on my TV.
Quote:

with celeron 933mHz and RAM 512MB the speed of encoding is 1x movie time.
But like russianexpart said you can use old pc that $200-$400. To encode a video that is faster and better quality then TMPGenc.
But again since I don't know your reasons I am going to shut up :) .

Dialhot 12-29-2003 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak47
But again since I don't know your reasons I am going to shut up :) .

Just to tell you : I'm a Unix software development engineer, I'm working on true Unix ws 10h a day and I know about Linux since 10 years. I really know why I don't want that on my PC (or to be more accurate, why PC's don't want Unix inside them). What you call "Linux potential" I call that working at a sick turtle rate :-). But I agree that compared to Windows, Linux runs like a rabbit :-D

PS: I do own 2 Pc (1 P4 and 1 Athlon) but is still not enought for my needs. :-) and I doubt I can use my good old 486DX33 for encoding :lol:

kwag 12-29-2003 09:40 PM

I'd love to see ffmpeg encoding on BeOS :mrgreen:
That would sweep the crap of just about any current Linux or *BSD distro :!:
Shame that Be inc. sold it :(
Now who knows if the OpenBEOS will ever be finished :!: :twisted:
Sorry for the off topic, but I just had to say that :hihi:

-kwag

ak47 12-29-2003 10:56 PM

Quote:

Just to tell you : I'm a Unix software development engineer, I'm working on true Unix ws 10h a day and I know about Linux since 10 years. I really know why I don't want that on my PC (or to be more accurate, why PC's don't want Unix inside them). What you call "Linux potential" I call that working at a sick turtle rate
So what I am getting is you are getting tired of Unix/Unix based?
Also that?s cool that you aren't against Linux and you?re a Unix software development engineer. Because I am trying to get a Linux certification and that?s cool that we have a lot of people on this forum that know Unix based software.

Dialhot 12-29-2003 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ak47
So what I am getting is you are getting tired of Unix/Unix based?

Not at all ! I'm getting tired of people thinking that a CISC cpu can do the same job as a well designed RISC processor. All PC internal scheme is not designed to work with Unix (or the opposite, as you want).

FYI my unix workstation at work has a 180 Mhz CPU and run a lot faster than my 1.4Ghz Pentium 4.

Quote:

Also that?s cool that you aren't against Linux and you?re a Unix software development engineer.
For sure I'm not against Linux. I just have difficulty to ride a donkey at home while I'm having a race horse at work. That's all :-)

Quote:

Because I am trying to get a Linux certification and that?s cool that we have a lot of people on this forum that know Unix based software.
I hope that you learn other systems than just Linux. It's amazing the number of people I meet in my work that pretend to be system engineer and do not even know the main differences between HPUX and Solaris :-(

kwag 12-29-2003 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dialhot

FYI my unix workstation at work has a 180 Mhz CPU and run a lot faster than my 1.4Ghz Pentium 4.

.. Snif ... Do I smell SGI :?: :cool: :lol:

-kwag

Dialhot 12-29-2003 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Snif ... Do I smell SGI :?: :cool: :lol:

Not at all but I used an INDIGO during my graduate year at High school and they are GREAT for working on picture and video :-)

I 'm currently working on HP workstation (B180) but this is just a front end to THE real piece of hardware : a V-class superdome (12 CPU, 20 GB of memory :-))

kwag 12-29-2003 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dialhot
Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Snif ... Do I smell SGI :?: :cool: :lol:

Not at all but I used an INDIGO during my graduate year at High school and they are GREAT for working on picture and video :-)

That's a cool machine :cool:
Quote:


I 'm currently working on HP workstation (B180) but this is just a front end to THE real piece of hardware : a V-class superdome (12 CPU, 20 GB of memory :-))
Yep. That will make a PC feel like a turtle :lol:

But this :arrow:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif
http://www.mosix.org/pics/index.html will make a superdome feel like an ant :mrgreen:

-kwag

Dialhot 12-29-2003 11:52 PM

Don't be offended but that kind of project makes laughting every people already involved in parallel hardware. What is the real purpose of having all this complete computers hanged up in a cupboard (do you really need all those floppy drives ? ;-)) ? To make people say "whaoooowww". And that works :-D

I worked on a PARAGON (1024 Intel i866 CPU) that has the power of a CRAY XP-1 for the 10th of the price (and yeah, I also had access to a XP-1 :-P). Other systems (do not remember the names :oops:) had up to 65535 processors. And I'm talking about machine existing 10 years ago.

The G5 cluster designed by Apple do not use complete MAC G5. Only the mother boards are wired together :-)

ak47 12-30-2003 12:02 AM

Kwag all those POSs make it into one big point of sale.
If computers are what I think they are.

kwag 12-30-2003 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dialhot
Don't be offended

I'm not :)
Quote:

but that kind of project makes laughting every people already involved in parallel hardware.
Look again :!:
The price of the Intel hardware is very cheap :!:
Are you aware that these kinds of clusters are currently being used at NASA and other science entities :?:
Quote:

What is the real purpose of having all this complete computers hanged up in a cupboard (do you really need all those floppy drives ? ;-)) ?
Not the floppies :lol:, but the cheap string of CPUs, yes :!:
Quote:

To make people say "whaoooowww". And that works :-D
It does :!:
Specially in number crunching applications.
Quote:


I worked on a PARAGON (1024 Intel i866 CPU) that has the power of a CRAY XP-1 for the 10th of the price (and yeah, I also had access to a XP-1 :-P). Other systems (do not remember the names :oops:) had up to 65535 processors. And I'm talking about machine existing 10 years ago.
Sure, but those CPUs didn't have the technology that the current CPUs have. Like pre-fetching pipelines, instruction prediction, etc.
So 1024 CPUs of that time is maybe the equivalent of 100 processors of the current technology today :)
Quote:


The G5 cluster designed by Apple do not use complete MAC G5. Only the mother boards are wired together :-)
That's a fine CPU (far better that any Intel chip).
I always liked Motorola's architecture ( my original training was on 6800, 6809 and 68000 processors).
They are a joy to program. Not the stupid segmented Intel arquitecture :twisted:
Hell, I even had more fun programming my old ATARI 800 in 6502 assembler :!:
Man, those were fun days :!:
( Now I should go cry to the Nostalgia forum :hihi: )

-kwag

Dialhot 12-30-2003 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dialhot
Are you aware that these kinds of clusters are currently being used at NASA and other science entities :?:


For sure I do. But such cluster do not use full and complete computers. As you tell : all they need is the power of the CPU -> only the mother boards are used. When they need for 100 CPUs, why do they pay for 100 box + 100 power supplies + 100 floppy drivers + ...
People at the Nasa don't go in the nearest computer shop and buy all the units avalaible :-)

I think in your mind you are mistaken (and such photo does not help :-)) real clusters and clusturized PC (or grid compting, that is using several PC linked throught a network to do a job).

Quote:

So 1024 CPUs of that time is maybe the equivalent of 100 processors of the current technology today :)
For sure, but I talked about the paragon just to tell : do you think that it was composed of 1024 computers pluged in a huge cupboard ? For sure not :-)

Quote:

I always liked Motorola's architecture ( my original training was on 6800, 6809 and 68000 processors).
I started on a 6502C (old good ORIC) but at the college I went on Atari 1024ST that was also 68000. Far easier to program than i286 :-)

Quote:

Hell, I even had more fun programming my old ATARI 800 in 6502 assembler :!:
I see we had the same hobbies :-P


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2022 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2022 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.