On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:57:11 -0400 Richard Kern <ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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. Yes, such an option would be good. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
