On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 07:29:05PM +0100, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote: > On 10 April 2016 at 17:42, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 04:38:35PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > > > --- > > > Changelog | 1 + > > > configure | 6 -- > > > doc/encoders.texi | 105 --------------------- > > > doc/ffserver.conf | 2 +- > > > doc/general.texi | 2 +- > > > doc/muxers.texi | 4 +- > > > doc/platform.texi | 2 +- > > > libavcodec/Makefile | 1 - > > > libavcodec/allcodecs.c | 1 - > > > libavcodec/libfaac.c | 248 > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > libavcodec/version.h | 2 +- > > > 11 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 367 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 libavcodec/libfaac.c > > > > this is not possible currently libfaac is twice as fast than the > > native encoder. > > > > time ./ffmpeg -v 0 -i matrixbench_mpeg2.mpg -vn -c:a libfaac -y test.aac > > real 0m2.828s > > user 0m2.776s > > sys 0m0.048s > > > > time ./ffmpeg -v 0 -i matrixbench_mpeg2.mpg -vn -y test.aac > > real 0m5.908s > > user 0m5.856s > > sys 0m0.048s > > > > > > > FAAC isn't maintained, hasn't had any work done on it in who knows how many > years, nobody but people who don't know that the native encoder/fdk is > better use it (just a few thankfully), isn't particularly stable > (segfaulted a few times when I was comparing it last year) and finally, > it's not good at all. > An argument that it's faster than the native encoder has as much weight as > an argument that libaac_plus was also faster than the native encoder, which > didn't matter as it was eventually removed > The age where we needed a few different AAC encoders because there wasn't > really a single good multipurpose one is gone now. The times have changed > since FAAC was developed (Nokia sponsored at lot of its development, and > you know what they used to make) and so have the computers. What was an > acceptable speed back then for encoding a file at a given quality isn't > necessarily the same now. And considering that fdk-aac can run as slow as > our encoder I'd say we're doing pretty well as far as the balance between > speed and quality goes.
x264 can encode at really impressive speed and also at really impressive quality, its the users choice by using teh preset option for aac the user can choose speed through using the libfaac encoder or quality through using the native encoder speed matters for battery powered devices, not just for media servers on phones but also for plain audio recording on phones which i think is more common. that said, to be blunt, make your encoder be capable to encode as fast and as good quality as libfaac and after that remove libfaac support if you want. This is not about changing a bad encoder to a good encoder, this patch is about removing choices. Before this patch users can force libfaac and have twice as long battery life at lower quality after the patch the users do not have that choice anymore I do not think thats a good idea nor in the interrest of our users [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good. Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
