Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (5439)

• creating thumbnail image through ffmpeg.exe

  18 septembre 2017, par Aniruddha Das

  I am creating thumbnail image(small size) from a big image. for same images it unable to create the thumbnail. if i move the image from one place to another it works.

  case :

  if image x is created in year 2000 and i tried to extract thumbnail from that and let i failed. then i moved the same image to another place and again try to extracted the thumbanil and it successfully extracted the thumbnail. even if i am again transforming the same image to the same place it is working.

  Edit : The command is :

  C:/xampp/htdocs/jcert6/seyretfiles/tools/converter/ffmpeg.exe
  
     -i "\\myip\knowledge base\videos\user_62\RHSSNet_Image_Library\images\Touchport_II\CD302_14_TPII_17in_PPR_Scanner.jpg" 
  
     -y -f mjpeg -s 72x92 -vframes 1
  
     -an c:/xampp/htdocs/jcert6/seyretfiles/uploads/thumbnails/user_62/user_62_tz2jliomkfunsrhd1291976903_0.jpg –

  While debugging, I found that if any images do not have created date is not processed by the ffmpeg and generate error image codec parameter.

  is it possible to process images without having a create date in ffmpeg ???

• Picturebox from AForge FFMPEG empty - C#/WinForms

  1er août 2017, par Jake Delson

  I’ve done a ton of research and looked at a lot of questions here but can’t seem to find anything to help me. I should preface I’m very new to C#, Windows Forms, and SO ! I’m a 1st year CompSci student coming from C++ experimenting with my own projects for the summer. I’m trying to display a series of bitmaps from a .avi using the AForge.Video.FFMPEG video file reader.

  It seems to be finding the file, getting its’ data (console prints dimensions, framerate, and codec) and creating the picturebox, but the picturebox comes up blank/empty. I get the bitmap from the frames of a .avi :

  From AForge example code here

  Then I’m trying to display it with a picture box :

  From MS example code here as well

  And here’s my code. Essentially a combination of the two :

      public class Simple : Form
  
  {
  
      Bitmap videoFrame;
  
  
  
      public Simple()
  
      {
  
          try
  
          {
  
              // create instance of video reader
  
              VideoFileReader reader = new VideoFileReader();
  
              // open video file
  
              reader.Open(@"C:\Users\User\Desktop\ScanTest3.AVI");
  
              // check some of its attributes
  
              Console.WriteLine("width:  " + reader.Width);
  
              Console.WriteLine("height: " + reader.Height);
  
              Console.WriteLine("fps:    " + reader.FrameRate);
  
              Console.WriteLine("codec:  " + reader.CodecName);
  
  
  
              PictureBox pictureBox1 = new PictureBox();
  
  
  
              // read 100 video frames out of it
  
              for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
  
              {
  
                  videoFrame = reader.ReadVideoFrame();
  
  
  
                  pictureBox1.SizeMode = PictureBoxSizeMode.StretchImage;
  
                  pictureBox1.ClientSize = new Size(videoFrame.Width, videoFrame.Height);
  
                  pictureBox1.Image = videoFrame;
  
  
  
                  // dispose the frame when it is no longer required
  
                  videoFrame.Dispose();
  
              }
  
  
  
              reader.Close();
  
          }
  
  
  
          catch
  
          {
  
              Console.WriteLine("Nope");
  
          }
  
  
  
      }
  
  }
  
  
  
  class MApplication
  
  {
  
      public static void Main()
  
      {
  
          Application.Run(new Simple());
  
      }
  
  }

  So that’s it pretty much. Just a blank picture box coming up, when it should have the first frame of the video, even though no exception caught (though I’m pretty confident I’m using the try/catch very poorly), and the console printing the correct data for the file :

  width:  720
  
  height: 480
  
  fps:    29
  
  codec:  dvvideo
  
  [swscaler @ 05E10060] Warning: data is not aligned! This can lead to a speedloss

  Though if anyone could tell me what that warning means, that would be great as well, but I’m mainly just lost as to why there’s no picture printing to the screen.

  Thanks !

• WebRTC predictions for 2016

  17 février 2016, par silvia

  I wrote these predictions in the first week of January and meant to publish them as encouragement to think about where WebRTC still needs some work. I’d like to be able to compare the state of WebRTC in the browser a year from now. Therefore, without further ado, here are my thoughts.

  WebRTC Browser support

  I’m quite optimistic when it comes to browser support for WebRTC. We have seen Edge bring in initial support last year and Apple looking to hire engineers to implement WebRTC. My prediction is that we will see the following developments in 2016 :

  • Edge will become interoperable with Chrome and Firefox, i.e. it will publish VP8/VP9 and H.264/H.265 support
  • Firefox of course continues to support both VP8/VP9 and H.264/H.265
  • Chrome will follow the spec and implement H.264/H.265 support (to add to their already existing VP8/VP9 support)
  • Safari will enter the WebRTC space but only with H.264/H.265 support

  Codec Observations

  With Edge and Safari entering the WebRTC space, there will be a larger focus on H.264/H.265. It will help with creating interoperability between the browsers.

  However, since there are so many flavours of H.264/H.265, I expect that when different browsers are used at different endpoints, we will get poor quality video calls because of having to negotiate a common denominator. Certainly, baseline will work interoperably, but better encoding quality and lower bandwidth will only be achieved if all endpoints use the same browser.

  Thus, we will get to the funny situation where we buy ourselves interoperability at the cost of video quality and bandwidth. I’d call that a “degree of interoperability” and not the best possible outcome.

  I’m going to go out on a limb and say that at this stage, Google is going to consider strongly to improve the case of VP8/VP9 by improving its bandwidth adaptability : I think they will buy themselves some SVC capability and make VP9 the best quality codec for live video conferencing. Thus, when Safari eventually follows the standard and also implements VP8/VP9 support, the interoperability win of H.264/H.265 will become only temporary overshadowed by a vastly better video quality when using VP9.

  The Enterprise Boundary

  Like all video conferencing technology, WebRTC is having a hard time dealing with the corporate boundary : firewalls and proxies get in the way of setting up video connections from within an enterprise to people outside.

  The telco world has come up with the concept of SBCs (session border controller). SBCs come packed with functionality to deal with security, signalling protocol translation, Quality of Service policing, regulatory requirements, statistics, billing, and even media service like transcoding.

  SBCs are a total overkill for a world where a large number of Web applications simply want to add a WebRTC feature – probably mostly to provide a video or audio customer support service, but it could be a live training session with call-in, or an interest group conference all.

  We cannot install a custom SBC solution for every WebRTC service provider in every enterprise. That’s like saying we need a custom Web proxy for every Web server. It doesn’t scale.

  Cloud services thrive on their ability to sell directly to an individual in an organisation on their credit card without that individual having to ask their IT department to put special rules in place. WebRTC will not make progress in the corporate environment unless this is fixed.

  We need a solution that allows all WebRTC services to get through an enterprise firewall and enterprise proxy. I think the WebRTC standards have done pretty well with firewalls and connecting to a TURN server on port 443 will do the trick most of the time. But enterprise proxies are the next frontier.

  What it takes is some kind of media packet forwarding service that sits on the firewall or in a proxy and allows WebRTC media packets through – maybe with some configuration that is necessary in the browsers or the Web app to add this service as another type of TURN server.

  I don’t have a full understanding of the problems involved, but I think such a solution is vital before WebRTC can go mainstream. I expect that this year we will see some clever people coming up with a solution for this and a new type of product will be born and rolled out to enterprises around the world.

  Summary

  So these are my predictions. In summary, they address the key areas where I think WebRTC still has to make progress : interoperability between browsers, video quality at low bitrates, and the enterprise boundary. I’m really curious to see where we stand with these a year from now.

  —

  It’s worth mentioning Philipp Hancke’s tweet reply to my post :

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-return/ … — we saw some clever people come up with a solution already. Now it needs to be implemented

  The post WebRTC predictions for 2016 first appeared on ginger’s thoughts.