On 9/13/16, Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li> wrote: > Hi all, > > So I know that not as many people use lavd, but I just wanted to ask a > couple questions about the lavd/lavf APIs (but mostly about lavd), maybe > fuel some thought about potentially developing/evolving the lavd API > further. > > 1. What is the real difference between lavf and lavd? > > Both lavf and lavd use AVInputFormat and AVOutputFormat, and from what I > can see, there is no real difference from lavd/lavf apart from their > folder names, and the general types of formats which they contain. > > 2. Does lavd need to be extended? > > So I can see where the original idea may have come from for > lavd--something which can interface with devices, similar to lavf but > not quite as 'passive'. Except it stayed as 'passive' as lavf, whereas > an 'active' lavd may have been able to take commands and interface with > devices with I/O as one might need. For instance with something like a > camera, you may need to pause, zoom-in, zoom-out, etc. Or an old tape > camcorder could take rewind, or fast-forward commands. And I'm sure > there are a lot more instances you can think of where input or output to > a 'device' outside of video, audio, subtitles, etc would be useful. > > If I'm mistaken, then please point it out, I'm still learning about the > code-base. (And if this discussion has happened before, please link me > to it, I couldn't find anything, but I may have just been searching for > the wrong thing).
Some people dislike lavd, mostly because thay do not need/use it. I'm all for improving API and making it more useful, so it can be reused by ffplay for example. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
