On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:50:06PM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Ricardo Constantino <wiia...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 23 March 2016 at 22:35, Aaron Boxer <boxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Back to my original point, what is the reasoning not to just switch to > > > OpenJPEG? > > Both OpenJPEG 1 and 2 are supported to add as external libraries in > > FFmpeg. What do you mean by switching to OpenJPEG? > > > > > I mean abandoning FFmpeg j2k codec, which seems to be a less-featureful > copy of OpenJPEG, > and putting resources into fixing OpenJPEG issues and making it better. > Since OpenJPEG > has a much broader user community, this would help both FFmpeg users and > many others.
I wonder if you mean only the encoder or also the decoder... In general: competition and alternatives are good. Every standard should have multiple viable implementations. Of course if much code is shared/copied that weakens the argument a lot. However when it comes to decoders I do consider it important for FFmpeg to have its own implementation even if there are such shortcomings. If for no other reason that having all implementations in a shared code base, with shared concepts that allows to compare and find common approaches much more easily seems a very important thing to me which nobody else provides. Every external codec re-invents their way of writing bitstreams, VLC codes, ... making it hard to impossible to share code or even concepts. Plus there is a good chance that FFmpeg will still be maintained by the time quite a few of those external libraries have become unmaintained and suffered of bitrot. In some ways I think I'd consider sharing test vectors a possibly more important way of cooperating with other projects than sharing code. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
