Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-13 Thread James Zern 
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
 wrote:
> Chrome canary now supports decoding of VP9 streams with alpha
> channel [1]. Add support to ffmpeg for creating such files.
>
> [1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2096813002/
>
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
> ---
>  libavcodec/libvpx.c| 3 +++
>  libavcodec/libvpxenc.c | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

applied
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-13 Thread James Zern 
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
 wrote:
>>> > Alright, i have a working patch for the decoder locally (i will push
>>> > that to the ML shortly).
>>>
>>> Here it is: http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2016-July/196403.html
>>
>>
>> Thanks, that resolves my concerns.
>>
>
> Can you please commit this patch? Thanks!

I missed Ronald's comment last week. I'll push this soon.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-12 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
>>  wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
>> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje > >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Hi,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
>> >>> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >>> >>> >> Hi,
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
>> >>> >>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
>> >>> ceho...@ag.or.at>
>> >>> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these
>> >>> files?
>> >>> >>> 
>> >>> >>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one
>> if
>> >>> the
>> >>> >>> >>> vp8 one is here.
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange
>> to
>> >>> allow
>> >>> >>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we
>> >>> recommend
>> >>> >>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by
>> using
>> >>> >>> ffmpeg
>> >>> >>> >> itself?
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
>> >>> >>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and
>> want
>> >>> >>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
>> >>> >>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
>> >>> >> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that
>> way
>> >>> in
>> >>> >> other cases.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use
>> Chrome
>> >>> as
>> >>> >> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
>> >>> >> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing
>> such
>> >>> >> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow
>> upload
>> >>> of
>> >>> >> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Additional evidence in [1], [2].
>> >>> >
>> >>> > There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a
>> decoding
>> >>> > outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all
>> multimedia
>> >>> > frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them
>> >>> (e.g.
>> >>> > ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not saying alpha decoder shouldn't ever be implemented in ffmpeg.
>> >>> I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a reason to block this patch. :)
>> >>> Sorry if i wasn't clear before.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I totally understand that you would think that, since it means you don't
>> >> have to do anything :).
>> >>
>> >> But there's an issue with this thinking. We're essentially already the
>> >> dumping ground for anything multimedia-related nowadays. After all, we
>> >> maintain it and keep it working (assuming basic tests), things couldn't
>> get
>> >> much easier than that, right? But is it actually useful to anyone? I
>> mean
>> >> not just useful for you, but useful to a wider set of people, at least
>> in
>> >> theory.
>> >>
>> >> If there's no decoder, I would claim that the wider utility of this
>> thing
>> >> is essentially zero. And that's somewhat of a concern.
>> >>
>> >> So, how do we get a decoder? vp8a suggests that just waiting for one to
>> >> spontaneously combust out of thin air just doesn't work. So I'm
>> suggesting
>> >> you provide us with one. It's ok if it uses libvpx instead of ffvp8/9.
>> >> Since vp8a encoding is already in, I won't ask for a vp8a decoder
>> either.
>> >> I'm just asking for a vp9a decoder. It might even be OK if it's
>> implemented
>> >> on top of ffmpeg instead of inside libavcodec (I'm not sure how others
>> feel
>> >> about this), i.e. just something that invokes libavformat to parse a
>> webm
>> >> file, create two decoders to get the yuv and a planes, and then merge
>> them
>> >> together into a yuva420p picture. I'm just asking for something _small_
>> and
>> >> _simple_ (i.e. not

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-07 Thread Ronald S. Bultje 
Hi Vignesh,

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
> >>> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >>> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
> >>> >>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
> >>> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
> >>> ceho...@ag.or.at>
> >>> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these
> >>> files?
> >>> >>> 
> >>> >>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one
> if
> >>> the
> >>> >>> >>> vp8 one is here.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange
> to
> >>> allow
> >>> >>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we
> >>> recommend
> >>> >>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by
> using
> >>> >>> ffmpeg
> >>> >>> >> itself?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
> >>> >>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and
> want
> >>> >>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
> >>> >>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
> >>> >> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that
> way
> >>> in
> >>> >> other cases.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use
> Chrome
> >>> as
> >>> >> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
> >>> >> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing
> such
> >>> >> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow
> upload
> >>> of
> >>> >> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Additional evidence in [1], [2].
> >>> >
> >>> > There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a
> decoding
> >>> > outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all
> multimedia
> >>> > frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them
> >>> (e.g.
> >>> > ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I'm not saying alpha decoder shouldn't ever be implemented in ffmpeg.
> >>> I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a reason to block this patch. :)
> >>> Sorry if i wasn't clear before.
> >>
> >>
> >> I totally understand that you would think that, since it means you don't
> >> have to do anything :).
> >>
> >> But there's an issue with this thinking. We're essentially already the
> >> dumping ground for anything multimedia-related nowadays. After all, we
> >> maintain it and keep it working (assuming basic tests), things couldn't
> get
> >> much easier than that, right? But is it actually useful to anyone? I
> mean
> >> not just useful for you, but useful to a wider set of people, at least
> in
> >> theory.
> >>
> >> If there's no decoder, I would claim that the wider utility of this
> thing
> >> is essentially zero. And that's somewhat of a concern.
> >>
> >> So, how do we get a decoder? vp8a suggests that just waiting for one to
> >> spontaneously combust out of thin air just doesn't work. So I'm
> suggesting
> >> you provide us with one. It's ok if it uses libvpx instead of ffvp8/9.
> >> Since vp8a encoding is already in, I won't ask for a vp8a decoder
> either.
> >> I'm just asking for a vp9a decoder. It might even be OK if it's
> implemented
> >> on top of ffmpeg instead of inside libavcodec (I'm not sure how others
> feel
> >> about this), i.e. just something that invokes libavformat to parse a
> webm
> >> file, create two decoders to get the yuv and a planes, and then merge
> them
> >> together into a yuva420p picture. I'm just asking for something _small_
> and
> >> _simple_ (i.e. not "Chrome") that we can point users to when they ask
> "how
> >> do I decode vp9a files".
> >>
> >> I asked on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel) and several people concurred:
> >>
> >>  jamrial: so … I’m looking for a second opinion

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-07 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
 wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
>> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
>>> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>> >>> >> Hi,
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
>>> >>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
>>> ceho...@ag.or.at>
>>> >>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these
>>> files?
>>> >>> 
>>> >>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if
>>> the
>>> >>> >>> vp8 one is here.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to
>>> allow
>>> >>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we
>>> recommend
>>> >>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using
>>> >>> ffmpeg
>>> >>> >> itself?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
>>> >>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
>>> >>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
>>> >>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
>>> >> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that way
>>> in
>>> >> other cases.
>>> >>
>>> >> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use Chrome
>>> as
>>> >> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
>>> >> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing such
>>> >> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow upload
>>> of
>>> >> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Additional evidence in [1], [2].
>>> >
>>> > There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a decoding
>>> > outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all multimedia
>>> > frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them
>>> (e.g.
>>> > ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm not saying alpha decoder shouldn't ever be implemented in ffmpeg.
>>> I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a reason to block this patch. :)
>>> Sorry if i wasn't clear before.
>>
>>
>> I totally understand that you would think that, since it means you don't
>> have to do anything :).
>>
>> But there's an issue with this thinking. We're essentially already the
>> dumping ground for anything multimedia-related nowadays. After all, we
>> maintain it and keep it working (assuming basic tests), things couldn't get
>> much easier than that, right? But is it actually useful to anyone? I mean
>> not just useful for you, but useful to a wider set of people, at least in
>> theory.
>>
>> If there's no decoder, I would claim that the wider utility of this thing
>> is essentially zero. And that's somewhat of a concern.
>>
>> So, how do we get a decoder? vp8a suggests that just waiting for one to
>> spontaneously combust out of thin air just doesn't work. So I'm suggesting
>> you provide us with one. It's ok if it uses libvpx instead of ffvp8/9.
>> Since vp8a encoding is already in, I won't ask for a vp8a decoder either.
>> I'm just asking for a vp9a decoder. It might even be OK if it's implemented
>> on top of ffmpeg instead of inside libavcodec (I'm not sure how others feel
>> about this), i.e. just something that invokes libavformat to parse a webm
>> file, create two decoders to get the yuv and a planes, and then merge them
>> together into a yuva420p picture. I'm just asking for something _small_ and
>> _simple_ (i.e. not "Chrome") that we can point users to when they ask "how
>> do I decode vp9a files".
>>
>> I asked on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel) and several people concurred:
>>
>>  jamrial: so … I’m looking for a second opinion here, like, an
>> independent one… am I being too hard on these guys for saying “an encoder
>> needs a decoder”?
>>  BBB: I do tend to agree that in general it goes dec->enc, or both at
>> the same time. be it a fully lavc decoder or just utilizing a decoder
>> library
>>  BBB: no, you're not being hard
>>
>> So it seems I'm not entirely alone in this opinion within the ffmpeg
>> developer

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-06 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
>> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer 
>> wrote:
>> >>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >>> >> Hi,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
>> >>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
>> ceho...@ag.or.at>
>> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these
>> files?
>> >>> 
>> >>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if
>> the
>> >>> >>> vp8 one is here.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to
>> allow
>> >>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we
>> recommend
>> >>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using
>> >>> ffmpeg
>> >>> >> itself?
>> >>>
>> >>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
>> >>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
>> >>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
>> >>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
>> >> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that way
>> in
>> >> other cases.
>> >>
>> >> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use Chrome
>> as
>> >> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
>> >> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing such
>> >> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow upload
>> of
>> >> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Additional evidence in [1], [2].
>> >
>> > There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a decoding
>> > outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all multimedia
>> > frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them
>> (e.g.
>> > ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?
>> >
>>
>> I'm not saying alpha decoder shouldn't ever be implemented in ffmpeg.
>> I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a reason to block this patch. :)
>> Sorry if i wasn't clear before.
>
>
> I totally understand that you would think that, since it means you don't
> have to do anything :).
>
> But there's an issue with this thinking. We're essentially already the
> dumping ground for anything multimedia-related nowadays. After all, we
> maintain it and keep it working (assuming basic tests), things couldn't get
> much easier than that, right? But is it actually useful to anyone? I mean
> not just useful for you, but useful to a wider set of people, at least in
> theory.
>
> If there's no decoder, I would claim that the wider utility of this thing
> is essentially zero. And that's somewhat of a concern.
>
> So, how do we get a decoder? vp8a suggests that just waiting for one to
> spontaneously combust out of thin air just doesn't work. So I'm suggesting
> you provide us with one. It's ok if it uses libvpx instead of ffvp8/9.
> Since vp8a encoding is already in, I won't ask for a vp8a decoder either.
> I'm just asking for a vp9a decoder. It might even be OK if it's implemented
> on top of ffmpeg instead of inside libavcodec (I'm not sure how others feel
> about this), i.e. just something that invokes libavformat to parse a webm
> file, create two decoders to get the yuv and a planes, and then merge them
> together into a yuva420p picture. I'm just asking for something _small_ and
> _simple_ (i.e. not "Chrome") that we can point users to when they ask "how
> do I decode vp9a files".
>
> I asked on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel) and several people concurred:
>
>  jamrial: so … I’m looking for a second opinion here, like, an
> independent one… am I being too hard on these guys for saying “an encoder
> needs a decoder”?
>  BBB: I do tend to agree that in general it goes dec->enc, or both at
> the same time. be it a fully lavc decoder or just utilizing a decoder
> library
>  BBB: no, you're not being hard
>
> So it seems I'm not entirely alone in this opinion within the ffmpeg
> developer community.
>

Alright, i have a working patch for the decoder locally (i will push
that to the ML shortly). In the meantime, let's please unblock this.
It worked this time as it wasn't too complex, but i'm

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-02 Thread Carl Eugen Hoyos 
Ivan Kalvachev  gmail.com> writes:

> Do you have idea how hard is adding decoding support this way?

It is non-trivial because the format is quite broken.

But I really don't see how any of this is related...

Carl Eugen

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Ronald S. Bultje 
Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
> >> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer 
> wrote:
> >>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
> >>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
> ceho...@ag.or.at>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these
> files?
> >>> 
> >>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if
> the
> >>> >>> vp8 one is here.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to
> allow
> >>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we
> recommend
> >>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using
> >>> ffmpeg
> >>> >> itself?
> >>>
> >>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
> >>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
> >>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
> >>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
> >> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that way
> in
> >> other cases.
> >>
> >> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use Chrome
> as
> >> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
> >> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing such
> >> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow upload
> of
> >> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
> >>
> >
> > Additional evidence in [1], [2].
> >
> > There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a decoding
> > outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all multimedia
> > frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them
> (e.g.
> > ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?
> >
>
> I'm not saying alpha decoder shouldn't ever be implemented in ffmpeg.
> I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a reason to block this patch. :)
> Sorry if i wasn't clear before.


I totally understand that you would think that, since it means you don't
have to do anything :).

But there's an issue with this thinking. We're essentially already the
dumping ground for anything multimedia-related nowadays. After all, we
maintain it and keep it working (assuming basic tests), things couldn't get
much easier than that, right? But is it actually useful to anyone? I mean
not just useful for you, but useful to a wider set of people, at least in
theory.

If there's no decoder, I would claim that the wider utility of this thing
is essentially zero. And that's somewhat of a concern.

So, how do we get a decoder? vp8a suggests that just waiting for one to
spontaneously combust out of thin air just doesn't work. So I'm suggesting
you provide us with one. It's ok if it uses libvpx instead of ffvp8/9.
Since vp8a encoding is already in, I won't ask for a vp8a decoder either.
I'm just asking for a vp9a decoder. It might even be OK if it's implemented
on top of ffmpeg instead of inside libavcodec (I'm not sure how others feel
about this), i.e. just something that invokes libavformat to parse a webm
file, create two decoders to get the yuv and a planes, and then merge them
together into a yuva420p picture. I'm just asking for something _small_ and
_simple_ (i.e. not "Chrome") that we can point users to when they ask "how
do I decode vp9a files".

I asked on IRC (#ffmpeg-devel) and several people concurred:

 jamrial: so … I’m looking for a second opinion here, like, an
independent one… am I being too hard on these guys for saying “an encoder
needs a decoder”?
 BBB: I do tend to agree that in general it goes dec->enc, or both at
the same time. be it a fully lavc decoder or just utilizing a decoder
library
 BBB: no, you're not being hard

So it seems I'm not entirely alone in this opinion within the ffmpeg
developer community.

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
>> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer  wrote:
>>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
>>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
>>> 
>>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
>>> >>> vp8 one is here.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to allow
>>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we recommend
>>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using
>>> ffmpeg
>>> >> itself?
>>>
>>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
>>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
>>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
>>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
>>
>>
>> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
>> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that way in
>> other cases.
>>
>> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use Chrome as
>> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
>> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing such
>> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow upload of
>> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
>>
>
> Additional evidence in [1], [2].
>
> There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a decoding
> outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all multimedia
> frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them (e.g.
> ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?
>

I'm not saying alpha decoder shouldn't ever be implemented in ffmpeg.
I'm just saying that it shouldn't be a reason to block this patch. :)
Sorry if i wasn't clear before.

> Ronald
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735450
> [2]
> http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2014-September/023436.html
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel



-- 
Vignesh
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Carl Eugen Hoyos 
James Zern  ffmpeg.org> writes:

> >> Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
> >
> > No, only encoding and muxing.
> 
> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this 
> one if the vp8 one is here.

Of course not.

Sorry if I gave that impression, Carl Eugen

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Ronald S. Bultje 
Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
> vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer  wrote:
>> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
>> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
>> >>> wrote:
>> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
>> 
>>  No, only encoding and muxing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
>> >>> vp8 one is here.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to allow
>> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we recommend
>> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using
>> ffmpeg
>> >> itself?
>>
>> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
>> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
>> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
>> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.
>
>
> The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
> therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that way in
> other cases.
>
> So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use Chrome as
> decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
> installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing such
> files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow upload of
> vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?
>

Additional evidence in [1], [2].

There absolutely seems to be interest in support for vp8a/vp9a decoding
outside Chrome. I'm not saying you should implement it in all multimedia
frameworks ever created in human history, but doing it in one of them (e.g.
ffmpeg, since it already supports encoding) certainly sounds helpful?

Ronald

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735450
[2]
http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2014-September/023436.html
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Ronald S. Bultje 
Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer  wrote:
> > On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern <
> jzern-at-google@ffmpeg.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
> >>> wrote:
> > Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
> 
>  No, only encoding and muxing.
> >>>
> >>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
> >>> vp8 one is here.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to allow
> >> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we recommend
> >> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using
> ffmpeg
> >> itself?
>
> One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
> useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
> to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
> first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.


The fact that something is the way it is, does not prove that it is
therefore right, or that we should therefore continue doing it that way in
other cases.

So you're suggesting that it is perfectly fine for people to use Chrome as
decoder if FFmpeg is the encoder. What if people don't have Chrome
installed? Or what if they want a way of UI-less batch-processing such
files, e.g. what if a service like Youtube/Vimeo wants to allow upload of
vp8a/vp9a files without invoking Chrome for decoding?

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:06 AM, James Almer  wrote:
> On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
>>> wrote:
> Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?

 No, only encoding and muxing.
>>>
>>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
>>> vp8 one is here.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to allow
>> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we recommend
>> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using ffmpeg
>> itself?

One plausible reason is that Chrome can decode this. So it will be
useful for people who already have ffmpeg in their pipelines and want
to create such files. And like James Almer mentioned, this isn't a
first. VP8 Alpha has been this way too.

>
> We already create animated webp files that we can't decode. It wouldn't
> be a first :P
>
> PS: We should really add animated webp decoding, for that matter.
>
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel



-- 
Vignesh
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread James Almer 
On 7/1/2016 2:53 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
>> wrote:
 Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
>>>
>>> No, only encoding and muxing.
>>
>> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
>> vp8 one is here.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to allow
> encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we recommend
> people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using ffmpeg
> itself?

We already create animated webp files that we can't decode. It wouldn't
be a first :P

PS: We should really add animated webp decoding, for that matter.

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Ronald S. Bultje 
Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, James Zern 
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
> wrote:
> >> Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
> >
> > No, only encoding and muxing.
>
> Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
> vp8 one is here.


I'm not sure I have an opinion on this... But it feels strange to allow
encoding of content we cannot decode. Being ffmpeg, how do we recommend
people handle the files created with this feature, if not by using ffmpeg
itself?

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread James Zern 
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:37 PM, James Zern
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
>>  wrote:
>>> Chrome canary now supports decoding of VP9 streams with alpha
>>> channel [1]. Add support to ffmpeg for creating such files.
>>>
>>> [1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2096813002/
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
>>> ---
>>>  libavcodec/libvpx.c| 3 +++
>>>  libavcodec/libvpxenc.c | 1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't there a vp8+alpha webm in fate?
>
> yes, there is one under vp8_alpha directory. but the test is very weak
> as it just does a -c copy and checks if the output has blockadditional
> data. if you want, i can replicate the same for vp9. let me know.
>

I think it would make sense if there was going to be work done on the
decode side.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread James Zern 
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:
>> Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?
>
> No, only encoding and muxing.
>

Seems like a feature request, but no reason to block this one if the
vp8 one is here.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Carl Eugen Hoyos 
Ronald S. Bultje  gmail.com> writes:

> Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files?

No, only encoding and muxing.

Carl Eugen

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Ronald S. Bultje 
Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian <
vigneshv-at-google@ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:37 PM, James Zern
>  wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
> >  wrote:
> >> Chrome canary now supports decoding of VP9 streams with alpha
> >> channel [1]. Add support to ffmpeg for creating such files.
> >>
> >> [1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2096813002/
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
> >> ---
> >>  libavcodec/libvpx.c| 3 +++
> >>  libavcodec/libvpxenc.c | 1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >
> > Wasn't there a vp8+alpha webm in fate?
>
> yes, there is one under vp8_alpha directory. but the test is very weak
> as it just does a -c copy and checks if the output has blockadditional
> data. if you want, i can replicate the same for vp9. let me know.


Do we have decoder support (for either vp8 or vp9) for these files? Using
either libvpx or ffvp8/9? My impression is no.

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-07-01 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:37 PM, James Zern
 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
>  wrote:
>> Chrome canary now supports decoding of VP9 streams with alpha
>> channel [1]. Add support to ffmpeg for creating such files.
>>
>> [1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2096813002/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
>> ---
>>  libavcodec/libvpx.c| 3 +++
>>  libavcodec/libvpxenc.c | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>
> Wasn't there a vp8+alpha webm in fate?

yes, there is one under vp8_alpha directory. but the test is very weak
as it just does a -c copy and checks if the output has blockadditional
data. if you want, i can replicate the same for vp9. let me know.

> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel



-- 
Vignesh
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-06-30 Thread James Zern 
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
 wrote:
> Chrome canary now supports decoding of VP9 streams with alpha
> channel [1]. Add support to ffmpeg for creating such files.
>
> [1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2096813002/
>
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
> ---
>  libavcodec/libvpx.c| 3 +++
>  libavcodec/libvpxenc.c | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>

Wasn't there a vp8+alpha webm in fate?
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] libvpx: Enable vp9 alpha encoding

2016-06-30 Thread Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
Chrome canary now supports decoding of VP9 streams with alpha
channel [1]. Add support to ffmpeg for creating such files.

[1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2096813002/

Signed-off-by: Vignesh Venkatasubramanian 
---
 libavcodec/libvpx.c| 3 +++
 libavcodec/libvpxenc.c | 1 +
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/libavcodec/libvpx.c b/libavcodec/libvpx.c
index 55edc7e..1eca97a 100644
--- a/libavcodec/libvpx.c
+++ b/libavcodec/libvpx.c
@@ -29,12 +29,14 @@
 
 static const enum AVPixelFormat vp9_pix_fmts_def[] = {
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P,
+AV_PIX_FMT_YUVA420P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_NONE
 };
 
 #if CONFIG_LIBVPX_VP9_ENCODER
 static const enum AVPixelFormat vp9_pix_fmts_highcol[] = {
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P,
+AV_PIX_FMT_YUVA420P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV440P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P,
@@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ static const enum AVPixelFormat vp9_pix_fmts_highcol[] = {
 
 static const enum AVPixelFormat vp9_pix_fmts_highbd[] = {
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P,
+AV_PIX_FMT_YUVA420P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV422P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV440P,
 AV_PIX_FMT_YUV444P,
diff --git a/libavcodec/libvpxenc.c b/libavcodec/libvpxenc.c
index 4ea932d..c5b1b86 100644
--- a/libavcodec/libvpxenc.c
+++ b/libavcodec/libvpxenc.c
@@ -284,6 +284,7 @@ static int set_pix_fmt(AVCodecContext *avctx, 
vpx_codec_caps_t codec_caps,
 #endif
 switch (avctx->pix_fmt) {
 case AV_PIX_FMT_YUV420P:
+case AV_PIX_FMT_YUVA420P:
 enccfg->g_profile = 0;
 *img_fmt = VPX_IMG_FMT_I420;
 return 0;
-- 
2.8.0.rc3.226.g39d4020

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel