чт, 18 июл. 2024 г., 23:44 Andrea paz via Cin <[email protected]>:
> > The CinGG-20230131-x86_64.AppImage name will remain the same, but just > will now be the multibit version. The > CinGG-20230131-x86_64-multibit.AppImage will no longer exist. I am not > going to bother creating an 8-bit appimage as it just seems unnecessary. I > will just leave CinGG-20230131-x86_64-older-distros-multibit.AppImage as > the same name to avoid any confusion. > > 2- Maybe I didn't understand correctly. Do you intend to rename all > the 2023/24 appimages, removing the word multibit, and deleting the > 8-bit ones? Will only the "older-distros" be left untouched? And the > "i386" versions are all 8-bit? I will change the dates from 20230131 > to 20240630 in the manual; however, I need the following data: Fedora > 29/32; Ubuntu 16.04 and Debian 9/11 are changed in the latest version > of 2024? > > Question to developers on 8-bit / multibit: I can't find anywhere > instructions on how to compile system ffmpeg with 10-bit x265. I think at least on Arch linux x265 build all-bit-depth systemwide: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=x265-mod-patman-git may be you can add "--disable-x265" switch to main cingg configure then add -lx265 to ldflags and "--enable-libx265" to FFMPEG_EXTRA_CFG ? Is it > not that, as std, in ffmpeg all bit-depths are compiled and it is only > in CinGG that there is something that prevents this, reducing the > compilation to 8-bit only (thus making the 3 patches necessary)? In > fact, my system ffmpeg has support for all bit-depths; why doesn't > CinGG's ffmpeg (without patches)? In short, if this impediment is > found, there would be no more need for the 3 patches and also the > compile time would not double (it almost seems like it builds to 8-bit > and then overlays a new 10-bit build on top of it). > -- > Cin mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin >
-- Cin mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
