> On Apr 10, 2016, at 3:47 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: >> Rick Kern <kernrj <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Don't require hardware encoding and explicitly fallback to >>> software if it fails. Enabling it without requiring it >>> will use hardware encoding if available. >> >> Hardware encoding should be required unless the user >> specifies something else. >> > > I agree, the goal of VT should be hardware encoding primarily. This commit message could have been worded better. It already falls back to software - this is just cleaner. The user has to explicitly request this encoder, so it shouldn’t fail if it’s capable of encoding.
Another goal is to encode video without embedding the encoder in the user's application, so it doesn’t matter if it’s hardware accelerated. I’m not familiar with patent laws, so I can’t really speak to why this is important. Beyond that, a few other VT codecs have been requested, but none of these are hardware accelerated. In any case, I'll add a require-hw option, but I think the default should fall back to software. > > - Hendrik > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
