13 ms·
Yes but isn't FFMpeg where the real value is ? VLC itself is a bit of a mess, the UI is clunky and and isn't a great media player experience. Would seem like t
by supercoder 10y ago
Yes but isn't FFMpeg where the real value is ? VLC itself is a bit of a mess, the UI is clunky and and isn't a great media player experience.
Would seem like the best of both worlds to use the web for UI but have FFMpeg deliver the frames.
- mdip 10y agoI tend to agree with you on this, personally. I can't speak to the code quality or whether or not VLC is a mess (I've never really looked) but I think the point here is the ability to play back (almost) any video/audio/subtitle format around which is met by both VLC and FFMPEG quite well. Being able to do that in a browser, without plug-ins, in a performant manner is important from an archival perspective (broadest audience support for the broadest array of file kinds/types). Unfortunately, the ultimate goal -- taking the control of "what codecs are supported for streaming" away from the browser vendors probably won't be met. The biggest issue there is supporting reliable playback across a variety of processors with performance/battery constraints. For desktop users it might be a doable thing, but unlikely for mobile. Granted, we're doing things on our mobile devices that would have been positively unimaginable 7 years ago, so who knows? At the end of the day, though, it's codec support that is the big win from my perspective -- lavc/lavf or FFMPEG -- not necessarily getting all of VLC ported.
- jbk 10y ago> Yes but isn't FFMpeg where the real value is ? Not only. Look at the VLC source code to see why. > VLC itself is a bit of a mess, the UI is clunky and and isn't a great media player experience. If it's that bad, why so many people use it? Sorry, but your comment is harsh, unexplained and very subjective... Especially coming from someone working for Apple.