Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (10321)

• How to send encoded video (or audio) data from server to client in a way that's decodable by webcodecs API using minimal latency and data overhead

  11 janvier 2023, par Tiger Yang

  My question (read entire post for context) :

  


  Given the unique circumstance of only ever decoding data from a specifically-configured encoder, what is the best way I can send the encoded bitstream along with the bare minimum extra bytes required to properly configure the decoder on the client's end (including only things that change per stream, and omitting things that don't, such as resolution) ? I'm a sucker for zero compromises, and I think I am willing to design my own minimal container format to accomplish this.

  


  Context and problem :

  


  I'm working on a remote desktop implementation that consists of a server that captures and encodes the display and speakers using FFmpeg and forwards it via pipe to a go (language) program which sends it on two unidirectional webtransport streams to my client, which I plan to decode using the webcodecs API. According to MDN, the video decoder needs to be fed via .configure() an object containing the following : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/VideoDecoder/configure before it's able to decode anything.

  


  same goes for the audio decoder : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/AudioDecoder/configure

  


  What I've tried so far :

  


  Because this remote desktop will be for my personal use only, it would only ever receive streams from a specific encoder configured in a specific way encoding video at a specific resolution, framerate, color space, etc.. Therefore, I took my video capture FFmpeg command...

  


  videoString := []string{
        "ffmpeg",
        "-init_hw_device", "d3d11va",
        "-filter_complex", "ddagrab=video_size=1920x1080:framerate=60",
        "-vcodec", "hevc_nvenc",
        "-tune", "ll",
        "-preset", "p7",
        "-spatial_aq", "1",
        "-temporal_aq", "1",
        "-forced-idr", "1",
        "-rc", "cbr",
        "-b:v", "500K",
        "-no-scenecut", "1",
        "-g", "216000",
        "-f", "hevc", "-",
    }


  


  ...and instructed it to write to an mp4 file instead of outputting to pipe, and then I had this webcodecs demo https://w3c.github.io/webcodecs/samples/video-decode-display/ demux it using mp4box.js. Knowing that the demo outputs a proper .configure() object, I blindly copied it and had my client configure using that every time. Sadly, it didn't work, and I since noticed that the "description" part of the configure object changes despite the encoder and parameters being the same.

  


  I knew that mp4 files worked via mp4box, but they can't be streamed with low latency over a network, and additionally, ffmpeg's -f parameters specifies the muxer to use, but there are so many different types.

  


  At this point, I think I'm completely out of my depth, so :

  


  Given the unique circumstance of only ever decoding data from a specifically-configured encoder, what is the best way I can send the encoded bitstream along with the bare minimum extra bytes required to properly configure the decoder on the client's end (including only things that change per stream, and omitting things that don't, such as resolution) ? I'm a sucker for zero compromises, and I think I am willing to design my own minimal container format to accomplish this. (copied above)

  


• What are the gotchas of using statically linked libraries in serverless platforms such as Google Cloud Functions ?

  5 septembre 2017, par Dzh

  Libraries such as ffmpeg-static upload statically linked binaries onto container.

  I wonder what are the drawbacks of using this approach ?

  Does the library size counts against your memory use (it’s billed by GCloud) ?

  Does it slow down the container ? Perhaps some future-proofing issues ?

  Edit : Found something of a related (I wanted to setup OpenCV) on AWS blog. It doesn’t explain drawbacks, just shows how to do it exactly.

• Possible bug in latest google chrome (v62) ?

  21 novembre 2017, par Jalal El-Shaer

  The following demo was working perfectly :

  http://jsfiddle.net/r6wz0nz6/2/

  The following is a sample of ’video-preview’ class in action :

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE" target="_blank" class="video-preview" data-frames="100" data-source="http://i.imgur.com/BX0pV4J.jpg">
  
  </a>

  Now, if you use your mouse to scroll from left-to-right, somehow it is not working (shows thumbnail instead of current image position). This was working perfectly before v62. While, from right-to-left, it works normally.

  Updated Please watch how this looks here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvDP-YXJgOk

  Question : How can I overcome this bug/issue ?

  P.S. the demo is based on this blog post (https://www.binpress.com/tutorial/how-to-generate-video-previews-with-ffmpeg/138)

  Update 2
  Interesting, in the following part :

  elm.mousemove(function(e) {
  
  var left = e.clientX - elm.position().left;
  
  slider.show().css('left', left -1); // <<---------------------- this line
  
  img.css('left', -Math.floor((left / width) * frames) * width);

  if I remove the ’-1’ like so :
  slider.show().css('left', left);
  It works from Left-To-Right, but now from Right-To-Left is showing same bug !!

  Proposed Workaround by @A. Wollf
  Change the "mouseout" to "mouseleave" and it seems to fix it : http://jsfiddle.net/r6wz0nz6/388