[FFmpeg-devel] lavfi state of affairs 3

Ramiro Polla ramiro.polla
Wed Jul 1 22:19:37 CEST 2009

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Baptiste
Coudurier<baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Wednesday 2009-07-01 10:22:36 -0700, Baptiste Coudurier encoded:
>>> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> note, before you waste more of our both time, acceptable patches are either
>>>> 1. mechanical updates that is application of changes from ffmpeg svn that
>>>> ? ?are not in soc yet.
>>>> 2. clean patches passing the full set of rules about clean patches
>>>> In that sense i like to again mention, that lavfi should be moved into ffmpeg
>>>> svn quickly because it does become more painfull with time (now a merge
>>>> _requires_ support for changing width/height as well, a short while ago it
>>>> didnt but now it would be a feature regression)
>>> Can you or someone else please state what needs to be done to finallly
>>> move lavfi into ffmpeg svn ? Maybe it would be possible to help.
>> Well, I tried to address some of the points listed here:
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/85905
>> I'll try to resume here the main current issues.
>> |* Expand filter missing.
>> |
>> | ?There is the need for an expand filter with "direct rendering", that
>> | ?is which doens't require memcpy of any sort, this maybe requires API
>> | ?extension:
>> | ?http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/85015
> Is this mandatory ? Direct rendering is not mandatory IMHO.

IMO it is very important. It's very hard to work on embedded systems
with limited memory size and bandwidth when you need to memcpy things
around needlessly. I've also found it hard to implement and even hack
direct rendering into frameworks that weren't designed with it in mind
(like VLC).

Ramiro Polla

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list