On 30 September 2016 at 14:16, Rostislav Pehlivanov
wrote:
>
>
> On 29 September 2016 at 21:54, Josh de Kock wrote:
>
>> There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
>> libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
>> even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's also under a
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:00:53PM +0100, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 30 September 2016 at 18:12, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:33:04AM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > > > dont remember if it was specific to libfaac but some issues in the
> > > > mov edit
On 30 September 2016 at 18:12, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:33:04AM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > > dont remember if it was specific to libfaac but some issues in the
> > > mov edit list patches about initial padding and trailing padding
> > > where found using li
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:33:04AM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
> > dont remember if it was specific to libfaac but some issues in the
> > mov edit list patches about initial padding and trailing padding
> > where found using libfaac as encoder.
> > if libfaac support is droped, muxers wont be t
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:16:40 +0100
Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 29 September 2016 at 21:54, Josh de Kock wrote:
>
> > There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
> > libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
> > even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's also unde
On 29 September 2016 at 21:54, Josh de Kock wrote:
> There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
> libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
> even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's also under a license which is
> unusable for distribution, so it would only be usefu
> dont remember if it was specific to libfaac but some issues in the
> mov edit list patches about initial padding and trailing padding
> where found using libfaac as encoder.
> if libfaac support is droped, muxers wont be tested against it anymore
> most likely. It could be done with command line
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:12:14PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 9/29/2016 7:21 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:54:42PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
[...]
>
> > if libfaac support is droped, muxers wont be tested against it anymore
> > most likely. It could be done w
On 9/29/2016 7:21 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:54:42PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
>> There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
>> libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
>> even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's also under a license
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:17:47 +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> The two last sentences seem to contradict each other, no?
No.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
2016-09-30 1:15 GMT+02:00 Lou Logan :
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:33:54 +0200, wm4 wrote:
>
>> I highly doubt anyone will bother with installing and compiling with
>> libfaac at all.
>
> Agreed.
>
> From my observations encountering a user with a modern ffmpeg
> actually encoding with libfaac is a ver
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:33:54 +0200, wm4 wrote:
> I highly doubt anyone will bother with installing and compiling with
> libfaac at all.
Agreed.
From my observations encountering a user with a modern ffmpeg actually
encoding with libfaac is a very rare occurance. Compared to other
encoders it is
On 30/09/2016 00:11, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2016-09-30 0:51 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:42:11 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2016-09-30 0:33 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:21:56 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Also this argument is highly shady
Am I correct that it
2016-09-30 0:51 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:42:11 +0200
> Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
>> 2016-09-30 0:33 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
>> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:21:56 +0200
>> > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>
>> > Also this argument is highly shady
>>
>> Am I correct that it is just a language erro
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:42:11 +0200
Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2016-09-30 0:33 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
> > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:21:56 +0200
> > Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > Also this argument is highly shady
>
> Am I correct that it is just a language error that makes you
> attack another deve
On 29/09/2016 23:42, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2016-09-30 0:33 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:21:56 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Also this argument is highly shady
Am I correct that it is just a language error that makes you
attack another developer personally?
wm4 didn't attac
2016-09-30 0:33 GMT+02:00 wm4 :
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:21:56 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Also this argument is highly shady
Am I correct that it is just a language error that makes you
attack another developer personally?
Carl Eugen
___
ffm
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:21:56 +0200
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:54:42PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
> > There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
> > libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
> > even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's als
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:54:42PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote:
> There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
> libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
> even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's also under a license which is
> unusable for distribution, so it would only
There is really no need for two aac wrappers, we already have
libfdk-aac which is better. Not to mention that faac doesn't
even support HEv1, or HEv2. It's also under a license which is
unusable for distribution, so it would only be useful to people
who will compile their own ffmpeg, only use it th
20 matches
Mail list logo
