Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (12565)

• Anomalie #3043 (Nouveau) : Suggestion ergonomie Interface privée : bouton Sauvegarder "flottant"

  19 août 2013, par YannX spip

  Bonjour,

  Au fur et à mesure de la complexification croissante de SPIP, les formulaires du privé s’allongent....
  vers le bas, alors que nos écrans s’allongent horizontalement !

  Dans la lignée de la taille d’ecran "Elastic" que je viens de decouvrir (avec HEUREUSE surprise),
  je suggère trois axes d’améliorations à discuter :
  - pouvoir rendre le bouton "sauvegarder" flottant (ou bien doublé en heaut de marge droite du menu /option)
  > de façon à toujours avoir accès (sans devoir scroller) quand on fait une modif rapide en début d’article
  avoir une personnalisation différente du menu (inspirée de Luis en 200 ? ),
  qui proposerait de disposer les icones principales du bandeau à gauche
  (à l’exemple de l’interface privée de WP... dont l’ergonomie semble assez souvent reconnue comme exemplaire)
  - utiliser plus largement les colonnes/boites du menu droite pour compléter les saisies...
  (mais cela pourrait nécessiter de revoir l’intégration dans un écran 2-colonnes (qd il existe encore)
  pour que des zones de saisie annexe (je pense en particulier aux mots-clés !! ) soient visibles/accessibles facilement !

  Qu’ne pensez-vous ?

  YannX
  PS n’oublions pas la définition de la majorité des portables : 1360 x 768
  sans oublier le format "vertical" des tablettes ou smartphones...

• How to save ffmpeg segmets to disk immediately with sub-second intervals ?

  20 octobre 2023, par amfast

  I'm trying to record video on a raspberry and have it save as much as possible (sub-second resolution) in case of a power cutoff.

  


  I use -f segment to save the encoded stream in 100ms segments with the hope that all but the interrupted (by power cutoff) segment will be saved in memory. Unfortunately, when cutting off power, all the destination files (output_0001.mp4, output_0002.mp4, ...) are created, but empty.

  


  To save the files to disk immediately, I added the -strftime 1 option that allows formatting the output filename as time. It seems weird that this is the (only ?) way to trigger immediate saving of files, but it works - untill I try to have segments smaller than 1 second. The problem seems to be that the format string %d, that previously added a sequence number in my output filenames, now represents "day" (i.e. date) and the smallest resolution time format string is %S for second. I saw %f suggested somewhere for smaller resolutions, but it only prints "%f".

  


  The result is that the segmentation part of ffmpeg does create 100ms segments and save them to disk immediately, but the strftime feature gives the output files names that only change every second, so all the interim files are overwritten.

  


  Example of the failing command below. Without the -strftime option this creates nice segments, but does not save them to disk immediately.

  


  libcamera-vid --flush \
    --framerate ${FRAMERATE} \
    --width ${WIDTH} \
    --height ${HEIGHT} \
    -n \
    -t ${TIMEOUT} \
    --codec yuv420 \
    -o - | 
ffmpeg \
    -fflags nobuffer \
    -strict experimental \
    -loglevel debug \
    -flags low_delay \
    -f rawvideo \
    -pix_fmt yuv420p \
    -s:v ${WIDTH}x${HEIGHT} \
    -r ${FRAMERATE} \
    -i - \
    -c:v h264_v4l2m2m \
    -f segment \
    -segment_time 0.1 \
    -segment_format mp4 \
    -reset_timestamps 1 \
    -strftime 1 \
    -b:v ${ENCODING_BITRATE} \
    -g 1 \
    "output_%04d.mp4"


  


  Question :
  
Is there another way besides -strftime to trigger immediate saving ? Or is there a mechanism to feed finer resolution format strings to the output filename ?

  


• How To Play Hardware Accelerated Video on A Mac

  28 mai 2013, par Multimedia Mike — General

  I have a friend who was considering purchasing a Mac Mini recently. At the time of this writing, there are 3 desktop models (and 2 more “server” models).

  
  
  

  The cheapest one is a Core i5 2.5 GHz. Then there are 2 Core i7 models : 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz. The difference between the latter 2 is US$100. The only appreciable technical difference is the extra 0.3 GHz and the choice came down to those 2.

  He asked me which one would be able to play HD video at full frame rate. I found this query puzzling. But then, I have been “in the biz” for a bit too long. Whether or not a computer or device can play a video well depends on a lot of factors.

  Hardware Support
  First of all, looking at the raw speed of the general-purpose CPU inside of a computer as a gauge of video playback performance is generally misguided in this day and age. In general, we have a video standard (H.264, which I’ll focus on for this post) and many bits of hardware are able to accelerate decoding. So, the question is not whether the CPU can decode the data in real time, but can any other hardware in the device (likely the graphics hardware) handle it ? These machines have Intel HD 4000 graphics and, per my reading of the literature, they are capable of accelerating H.264 video decoding.

  Great, so the hardware supports accelerated decoding. So it’s a done deal, right ? Not quite…

  Operating System Support
  An application can’t do anything pertaining to hardware without permission from the operating system. So the next question is : Does Mac OS X allow an application to access accelerated video decoding hardware if it’s available ? This used to be a contentious matter (notably, Adobe Flash Player was unable to accelerate H.264 playback on Mac in the absence of such an API) but then Apple released an official API detailed in Technical Note TN2267.

  So, does this mean that video is magically accelerated ? Nope, we’re still not there yet…

  Application Support
  It’s great that all of these underlying pieces are in place, but if an individual application chooses to decode the video directly on the CPU, it’s all for naught. An application needs to query the facilities and direct data through the API if it wants to leverage the acceleration. Obviously, at this point it becomes a matter of “which application ?”

  My friend eventually opted to get the pricier of the desktop Mac Mini models and we ran some ad-hoc tests since I was curious how widespread the acceleration support is among Mac multimedia players. Here are some programs I wanted to test, playing 1080p H.264 :

  • Apple QuickTime Player
  • VLC
  • YouTube with Flash Player (any browser)
  • YouTube with Safari/HTML5
  • YouTube with Chrome/HTML5
  • YouTube with Firefox/HTML5
  • Netflix

  I didn’t take exhaustive notes but my impromptu tests revealed QuickTime Player was, far and away, the most performant player, occupying only around 5% of the CPU according to the Mac OS X System Profiler graph (which is likely largely spent on audio decoding).

  VLC consistently required 20-30% CPU, so it’s probably leveraging some acceleration facilities. I think that Flash Player and the various HTML5 elements performed similarly (their multi-process architectures can make such a trivial profiling test difficult).

  The outlier was Netflix running in Firefox via Microsoft’s Silverlight plugin. Of course, the inner workings of Netflix’s technology are opaque to outsiders and we don’t even know if it uses H.264. It may very well use Microsoft’s VC-1 which is not a capability provided by the Mac OS X acceleration API (it doesn’t look like the Intel HD 4000 chip can handle it either). I have never seen any data one way or another about how Netflix encodes video. However, I was able to see that Netflix required an enormous amount of CPU muscle on the Mac platform.

  Conclusion
  The foregoing is a slight simplification of the video playback pipeline. There are some other considerations, most notably how the video is displayed afterwards. To circle back around to the original question : Can the Mac Mini handle full HD video playback ? As my friend found, the meager Mac Mini can do an admirable job at playing full HD video without loading down the CPU.