Recherche avancée

Médias (91)

Autres articles (43)

  • 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

  • Creating farms of unique websites

    13 avril 2011, par

    MediaSPIP platforms can be installed as a farm, with a single "core" hosted on a dedicated server and used by multiple websites.
    This allows (among other things) : implementation costs to be shared between several different projects / individuals rapid deployment of multiple unique sites creation of groups of like-minded sites, making it possible to browse media in a more controlled and selective environment than the major "open" (...)

  • MediaSPIP v0.2

    21 juin 2013, par

    MediaSPIP 0.2 is the first MediaSPIP stable release.
    Its official release date is June 21, 2013 and is announced here.
    The zip file provided here only contains the sources of MediaSPIP in its standalone version.
    To get a working installation, you must manually install all-software dependencies on the server.
    If you want to use this archive for an installation in "farm mode", you will also need to proceed to other manual (...)

Sur d’autres sites (4947)

  • What's the difference with crf and qp in ffmpeg ?

    18 novembre 2016, par Nova

    After browsing around Google, I’ve came across this page about h264 encoding and discovered about qp. https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.264

    My questions are : What are the differences with crf and qp ? Is it better to use qp over crf overall, or is it only if for using qp 0 for best lossless ? Does qp have a known sensible setting if it’s preferred ? So far, I know crf has the default value of 23 while 18 is a sensible preferred increase in quality, although I don’t understand why 18 wouldn’t be default if better sensible lossless. Lastly, would changing either of them cause incompatibility with non-ffmpeg players or just qp ?

    I’m converting from webm to mp4 by the way.

    I was going to test crf 23 and 18 and pick which is best but I can’t seem to find any concrete information on this comparison or about qp.

  • avformat/movenc : Check first DTS similar to dts difference

    9 septembre 2016, par Michael Niedermayer
    avformat/movenc : Check first DTS similar to dts difference
    

    Fixes assertion failure
    Fixes : b84b53855a0b74560e64c6f45f505a13/signal_sigabrt_7ffff6ae7c37_3837_ef4e243ea5b4fa8d0becf4afe9166604.avi

    Found-by : Mateusz "j00ru" Jurczyk and Gynvael Coldwind
    Signed-off-by : Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>

    • [DH] libavformat/movenc.c
  • Difference between ffmpeg and avconv for rawvideo image2pipe

    15 août 2016, par NHDaly

    I’m not sure why, but avconv does not seem to be piping raw video like I would expect.

    I’m trying pipe a video from ffmpeg into python (eventually I want to read from x11grab, not a video file). It works just fine on my Macbook using ffmpeg, but when I use avconv on Debian Jessie, the stream cuts off early !

    Here’s my basic python, which is following this guide :

    input_resolution_shape = (1280,800,3)
    input_bytes = reduce(mul, input_resolution_shape, 1)
    print input_bytes

    # Prints 3072000

    import subprocess as sp
    command = [ FFMPEG_BIN,   # This is either "avconv" or "ffmpeg".
               '-i', 'test_video.mp4',
               '-f', 'image2pipe',
               '-pix_fmt', 'rgb24',
               '-vcodec', 'rawvideo', '-']
    pipe = sp.Popen(command, stdout = sp.PIPE, bufsize=10**8)

    import numpy
    for _ in range(100):  # read 100 frames
       # read 1280*800*3 bytes (= 1 frame)
       raw_image = pipe.stdout.read(input_bytes)
       # transform the byte read into a numpy array
       image = numpy.fromstring(raw_image, dtype='uint8')
       if image.size != 0:
           print image.size

           # Prints 1015808

    On the mac, the image.size printed is the same as the input_bytes, 3072000. But on debian, it’s 1015808. Any ideas why that could be happening ?

    Interestingly, 3072000/1015808 is just about 3 :

    In [1]:    3072000./1015808.
    Out[1]:    3.024193548387097