Recherche avancée

Médias (2)

Mot : - Tags -/media

Autres articles (72)

  • La file d’attente de SPIPmotion

    28 novembre 2010, par

    Une file d’attente stockée dans la base de donnée
    Lors de son installation, SPIPmotion crée une nouvelle table dans la base de donnée intitulée spip_spipmotion_attentes.
    Cette nouvelle table est constituée des champs suivants : id_spipmotion_attente, l’identifiant numérique unique de la tâche à traiter ; id_document, l’identifiant numérique du document original à encoder ; id_objet l’identifiant unique de l’objet auquel le document encodé devra être attaché automatiquement ; objet, le type d’objet auquel (...)

  • Publier sur MédiaSpip

    13 juin 2013

    Puis-je poster des contenus à partir d’une tablette Ipad ?
    Oui, si votre Médiaspip installé est à la version 0.2 ou supérieure. Contacter au besoin l’administrateur de votre MédiaSpip pour le savoir

  • MediaSPIP Core : La Configuration

    9 novembre 2010, par

    MediaSPIP Core fournit par défaut trois pages différentes de configuration (ces pages utilisent le plugin de configuration CFG pour fonctionner) : une page spécifique à la configuration générale du squelettes ; une page spécifique à la configuration de la page d’accueil du site ; une page spécifique à la configuration des secteurs ;
    Il fournit également une page supplémentaire qui n’apparait que lorsque certains plugins sont activés permettant de contrôler l’affichage et les fonctionnalités spécifiques (...)

Sur d’autres sites (9309)

  • Compressing videos from a smartphone

    21 septembre 2019, par fejesjoco

    I have a Nexus 6p with the stock camera. It’s set to record at 1080p, 30fps. Here’s a 5 second sample (11 MB).

    Videos from this phone come out at about 17 Mbps on average. I tried to compress it with ffmpeg with -c:v libx264 -crf 23 -preset veryslow, the result comes out at about 5.5 MB, which is about 9 Mbps.

    I think this bitrate is a bit too much. When I look at torrent file listings, I can see high quality videos at 3 GB in size on average, and if such a movie is 90 minutes long on average, that is about 4-5 Mbps which sounds okay.

    I’m wondering, why the big difference ? I can notice that my video is noisy/grainy (which is expected from a phone), and that might reduce compressibility. I tried a few ffmpeg filters, like hqdn3d and atadenoise, but the noise mostly remained (maybe I didn’t play with it enough). Then I figured, the video is also shaky (which is also expected), and that might reduce compressibility too (and even makes temporal noise filtering less effective). I tried to stabilize it with the deshake filter, but that didn’t help either.

    I know I could just limit the bandwidth to whatever I like, but there must be a reason why ffmpeg thinks it needs a high bandwidth to maintain a certain quality, and a lower bandwidth would just decrease the quality.

    Why do these videos have such a high bitrate ? What’s the best way to compress them more while keeping or even increasing their quality ?

  • Compressing videos from a smartphone

    9 novembre 2016, par fejesjoco

    I have a Nexus 6p with the stock camera. It’s set to record at 1080p, 30fps. Here’s a 5 second sample (11 MB).

    Videos from this phone come out at about 17 Mbps on average. I tried to compress it with ffmpeg with -c:v libx264 -crf 23 -preset veryslow, the result comes out at about 5.5 MB, which is about 9 Mbps.

    I think this bitrate is a bit too much. When I look at torrent file listings, I can see high quality videos at 3 GB in size on average, and if such a movie is 90 minutes long on average, that is about 4-5 Mbps which sounds okay.

    I’m wondering, why the big difference ? I can notice that my video is noisy/grainy (which is expected from a phone), and that might reduce compressibility. I tried a few ffmpeg filters, like hqdn3d and atadenoise, but the noise mostly remained (maybe I didn’t play with it enough). Then I figured, the video is also shaky (which is also expected), and that might reduce compressibility too (and even makes temporal noise filtering less effective). I tried to stabilize it with the deshake filter, but that didn’t help either.

    I know I could just limit the bandwidth to whatever I like, but there must be a reason why ffmpeg thinks it needs a high bandwidth to maintain a certain quality, and a lower bandwidth would just decrease the quality.

    Why do these videos have such a high bitrate ? What’s the best way to compress them more while keeping or even increasing their quality ?

  • Is there a set of working P/Invoke declarations for FFMpeg, libavutil, libavformat and libavcodec in .NET ?

    11 février 2014, par casperOne

    I'm currently looking to access libavutil, libavformat and libavcodec (all part of FFMpeg) from .NET.

    Currently, I'm getting the libraries from the automated builds of the shared FFMpeg package performed every night for Windows 32-bit.

    I am also using the code from the ffmpeg-sharp project. In that project, I have removed a number of classes that were not compiling (they are wrapper classes not the P/Invoke declarations).

    The code compiles fine, but I am running into a few issues.

    First, it appears that the build of av*.dll uses the cdecl calling convention, as I was receiving a number of PInvokeStackImbalanceException when trying to call av_open_input_file. This was easy enough to change to get it to work right. The AVFormatContext structure is populated.

    After that, I want to call av_find_stream_info to get information about the streams in the file. However, when calling that with the AVFormatContext retrieved from the call to av_open_input_file, an AccessViolationException is thrown indicating that I am trying to read or write from protected memory.

    Has anyone used P/Invoke to access the libavutil, libavformat and libavcodec dll libraries through P/Invoke and have gotten it to work ?

    I should mention that working with the command-line version of FFMpeg, while a solution, is not a viable solution in this case, access needs to occur through the libraries. The reason for this is that I'd have to thrash the disk way too much to do what I need to do (I have to do a frame-by-frame analysis of some very high definition video) and I want to avoid the disk as much as possible.