Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:10PM +0100, Peter Ueger wrote: > > 2008/3/25, Francesco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > We (I) had no interest in implement every possible format/codec in the > > > wild; > > > > Why would you have to do that? Others have already done that for you, > > don't they? > > > > > nor we (I) want to make a framework, just an highly-modular tool > > > > see above > > > > transcode is interesting because of it's multi-process/multi-thread > design. ffmpeg will never be like that. ffmpeg will never have the > filtering capabilities, or third party extendibility that comes > from being modular like transcode. > > it's all about choices. > > besides, one could argue, that since transcode uses ffmpeg, they really > are already a joined force.
I know it irks some people, but '-x mplayer' even makes it possible to do fantastic things with transcode that mencoder cannot do (hard code elaborate styled text, logos, whatever, from .ass files, for example) ;^)
