[FFmpeg-trac] #2463(undetermined:new): ffspeak

[FFmpeg]

#2463: ffspeak
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
             Reporter:  burek        |                    Owner:
                 Type:  enhancement  |                   Status:  new
             Priority:  wish         |                Component:
              Version:  unspecified  |  undetermined
             Keywords:               |               Resolution:
             Blocking:               |               Blocked By:
Analyzed by developer:  0            |  Reproduced by developer:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by burek):

 Replying to [comment:4 saste]:
 > Replying to [comment:3 burek]:
 > > I guess what you suggested might be put into a todo for some future
 versions...
 > How is this different from what ffserver does (not a rethoric question)?

 If ffserver can already do all this, then great! We could only create some
 wrapper scripts for users to be able to easily start everything and it's
 already done. But somehow I doubt that ffserver can combine or switch to
 different audio inputs, to be able to broadcast it to other listeners...
 ffserver can easily do one-to-many scenario, but it is not always the case
 that one speaker is actively talking, which requires that ffserver either
 combines all audio inputs and broadcasts it or to switch the currently
 active input (active speaker) for rebroadcast.

 Regarding the video, this should be an easier part since the video inputs
 would all be collected at all time and joined into some kind of a matrix
 output (tile filter or some other, more suitable), without the need for
 switching or excluding the sender in the rebroadcast.


 > > Also, I like the name fftalk (it sounds more convenient), but I don't
 know how to change the topic of the ticket.
 >
 > I don't like to name things we don't even know what they are (a program,
 an API, a framework?).

 In the best case scenario, if everything is already implemented in the
 source code parts and we only need to put all the things together, it
 would be some kind of a wrapper. However, I believe it's the developers
 who should decide which way to go on this topic, but I just stated that it
 might be named something like that, because it sounds nice.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/trac/ffmpeg/ticket/2463#comment:5>
FFmpeg <http://ffmpeg.org>
FFmpeg issue tracker