headers
Erik Slagter | 1 May 2004 12:04

FFmpeg v4l grabbing

Why does this command line:

ffmpeg -ad /dev/dsp -ar 32000 -ab 224 -ac 2 -y -t pal-dvd -b 9000 -s
704x576 -vcodec mpeg2video -nr 50 -f mpeg test

Give this output:

Input #0, video4linux, from '':
  Duration: N/A, bitrate: N/A
  Stream #0.0: Video: rawvideo, yuv420p, 704x576, 25.00 fps
Could not find audio grab device

After trying to open "" (from strace) while I actually do supply the
audio grab device?

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Steve Dekorte | 2 May 2004 01:05
Gravatar

-> rm conversion results in static at end of file


When I convert an mp3 to rm format, the resulting file has a moment of 
static at the end. Has anyone else experienced this problem or know of 
a workaround? I'm on OSX 10.3.3 using ffmpeg 0.4.8.

Cheers,
-- Steve

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael Niedermayer CVS | 2 May 2004 03:03
Picon

CVS: ffmpeg/libavformat nut.c,1.31,1.32

Update of /cvsroot/ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavformat
In directory mail:/var2/tmp/cvs-serv24880

Modified Files:
	nut.c 
Log Message:
match latest spec
seeking to startcode-less frames

Index: nut.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavformat/nut.c,v
retrieving revision 1.31
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -d -r1.31 -r1.32
--- nut.c	12 Apr 2004 22:23:16 -0000	1.31
+++ nut.c	2 May 2004 01:03:55 -0000	1.32
 <at>  <at>  -47,23 +47,20  <at>  <at> 
 #define    INDEX_STARTCODE (0xDD672F23E64EULL + (((uint64_t)('N'<<8) + 'X')<<48)) 
 #define     INFO_STARTCODE (0xAB68B596BA78ULL + (((uint64_t)('N'<<8) + 'I')<<48)) 

-#define MAX_TYPE1_DISTANCE (1024*16-1)
-#define MAX_TYPE2_DISTANCE (1024*64-1)
+#define MAX_DISTANCE (1024*16-1)
+#define MAX_SHORT_DISTANCE (1024*4-1)

-#define MAX_SIZE_LRU 2
 #define MAX_PTS_LRU 3

-#define FLAG_FRAME_TYPE      1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Erik Slagter | 2 May 2004 15:35

v4l

Why does this command line:

ffmpeg -ad /dev/dsp -ar 32000 -ab 224 -ac 2 -y -t pal-dvd -b 9000 -s
704x576 -vcodec mpeg2video -nr 50 -f mpeg test

Give this output:

Input #0, video4linux, from '':
  Duration: N/A, bitrate: N/A
  Stream #0.0: Video: rawvideo, yuv420p, 704x576, 25.00 fps
Could not find audio grab device

After trying to open "" (from strace) while I actually do supply the
audio grab device?

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nick Stewart | 2 May 2004 19:54
Picon

LGPL Clarification

Sorry, for what will sound like an obvious question with an obvious answer, but I could do with some
clarification (mainly for other people). (Especially if Michael could post, as that would carry more
weight :) )

I have a Windows app that use libavcodec.lib to encode raw video. libavcodec.lib is compiled so no GPL code
is used, so the library is totally under LGPL.

The application just simply links to libavcodec.lib. But the application is closed source (The app itself
is free and downloadable but the source code is not open). Is that acceptable under the LGPL. From all the
knowledge I know, that is fine under the LGPL. But others wish to disagree with me. From the LGPL license it
also appears fine (to me), but other people are misinterpretting the parts of Section 5 that relate to
Section 6.

Could I get a final word from you guys please?

 A simple "yes it's ok" or "no it's not because of x" will suffice.

Thank you as always.
Attachment (winmail.dat): application/ms-tnef, 3427 bytes
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
D Richard Felker III | 2 May 2004 20:21

Re: LGPL Clarification

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:54:48PM +0100, Nick Stewart wrote:
> Sorry, for what will sound like an obvious question with an obvious
> answer, but I could do with some clarification (mainly for other
> people). (Especially if Michael could post, as that would carry more
> weight :) )
>  
> I have a Windows app that use libavcodec.lib to encode raw video.
> libavcodec.lib is compiled so no GPL code is used, so the library is
> totally under LGPL.
>  
> The application just simply links to libavcodec.lib. But the
> application is closed source (The app itself is free and
> downloadable but the source code is not open). Is that acceptable
> under the LGPL. From all the knowledge I know, that is fine under
> the LGPL. But others wish to disagree with me. From the LGPL license
> it also appears fine (to me), but other people are misinterpretting
> the parts of Section 5 that relate to Section 6.
>  
> Could I get a final word from you guys please?
>  
>  A simple "yes it's ok" or "no it's not because of x" will suffice.
>  
> Thank you as always.

No, it's not ok. The LGPL requires that you provide a way for users to
modify the LGPL part of the program and relink it into your program so
that their modifications can be used. The easiest way to satisfy this
is to make libavcodec a dll instead of a static-linked library.
However, there are other options such as releasing object modules or a
static library consisting of the rest of your program, so that users
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James Morrison | 2 May 2004 20:26
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: LGPL Clarification


"Nick Stewart" <nick.stewart <at> cambridgeimaging.co.uk> writes:

> Sorry, for what will sound like an obvious question with an obvious answer, but I could do with some
clarification (mainly for other people). (Especially if Michael could post, as that would carry more
weight :) )
>  
> I have a Windows app that use libavcodec.lib to encode raw video. libavcodec.lib is compiled so no GPL code
is used, so the library is totally under LGPL.
>  
> The application just simply links to libavcodec.lib. But the application is closed source (The app
itself is free and downloadable but the source code is not open). Is that acceptable under the LGPL. From
all the knowledge I know, that is fine under the LGPL. But others wish to disagree with me. From the LGPL
license it also appears fine (to me), but other people are misinterpretting the parts of Section 5 that
relate to Section 6.
>  
> Could I get a final word from you guys please?
>  
>  A simple "yes it's ok" or "no it's not because of x" will suffice.
>  
> Thank you as always.

 I'm not a main copyright holder so I have no direct say.  However, the lgpl
does say that people should be able to relink the application against a
modified verion of the lgpl'd library.  So if libavcodec is dynamically loaded
you can just provide the source to libavcodec.  If it is statically linked you
can provide a bunch of object files for your code that and a makefile to link
in libavcodec to your object files.

This is a quotation from the preamble of the lgpl:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nick Stewart | 2 May 2004 20:33
Picon

RE: LGPL Clarification

Thanks for the quick reply. :)

I'd like to, if at all possible keep the download of the app to just one executeable. Can I just compile the app
as a .lib file and release that ? Or all the object modules that comprise the app?
(Although I don't know what use the obj and lib file would be useful)

The LGPL did not seem clear on this as linking I thought would be the same through DLL as if by .lib. But if
that's not the case ill rectify it. Hopefully keeping it to one .exe, but if not using an exe and a DLL.

If you could advise some more i'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

________________________________

From: ffmpeg-devel-admin <at> lists.sourceforge.net on behalf of D Richard Felker III
Sent: Sun 5/2/2004 7:21 PM
To: ffmpeg-devel <at> lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Ffmpeg-devel] LGPL Clarification

On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 06:54:48PM +0100, Nick Stewart wrote:
> Sorry, for what will sound like an obvious question with an obvious
> answer, but I could do with some clarification (mainly for other
> people). (Especially if Michael could post, as that would carry more
> weight :) )
> 
> I have a Windows app that use libavcodec.lib to encode raw video.
> libavcodec.lib is compiled so no GPL code is used, so the library is
> totally under LGPL.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Roberto Togni | 2 May 2004 20:48
Picon
Favicon

CYUV without DR1

Hi all!

Does anybody know why CYUV doesn't have CODEC_CAP_DR1 flag?

It doesn't do anything weird with buffers (intra codec, write only  
buffers), and it works for me (both ffplay and mplayer) with dr1  
enabled.

Ok to add it?

Ciao,
 Roberto

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Michael Niedermayer | 2 May 2004 21:04
Picon
Picon

Re: CYUV without DR1

Hi

On Sunday 02 May 2004 20:48, Roberto Togni wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Does anybody know why CYUV doesn't have CODEC_CAP_DR1 flag?
>
> It doesn't do anything weird with buffers (intra codec, write only
> buffers), and it works for me (both ffplay and mplayer) with dr1
> enabled.
>
> Ok to add it?
yes

[...]
--

-- 
Michael
level[i]= get_vlc(); i+=get_vlc();		(violates patent EP0266049)
median(mv[y-1][x], mv[y][x-1], mv[y+1][x+1]);	(violates patent #5,905,535)
buf[i]= qp - buf[i-1];				(violates patent #?)
for more examples, see http://mplayerhq.hu/~michael/patent.html
stop it, see http://petition.eurolinux.org & http://petition.ffii.org/eubsa/en

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane