
Recherche avancée
Autres articles (79)
-
Websites made with MediaSPIP
2 mai 2011, parThis page lists some websites based on MediaSPIP.
-
MediaSPIP v0.2
21 juin 2013, parMediaSPIP 0.2 est la première version de MediaSPIP stable.
Sa date de sortie officielle est le 21 juin 2013 et est annoncée ici.
Le fichier zip ici présent contient uniquement les sources de MediaSPIP en version standalone.
Comme pour la version précédente, il est nécessaire d’installer manuellement l’ensemble des dépendances logicielles sur le serveur.
Si vous souhaitez utiliser cette archive pour une installation en mode ferme, il vous faudra également procéder à d’autres modifications (...) -
Creating farms of unique websites
13 avril 2011, parMediaSPIP 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" (...)
Sur d’autres sites (12928)
-
Dreamcast Track Sizes
1er mars 2015, par Multimedia Mike — Sega DreamcastI’ve been playing around with Sega Dreamcast discs lately. Not playing the games on the DC discs, of course, just studying their structure. To review, the Sega Dreamcast game console used special optical discs named GD-ROMs, where the GD stands for “gigadisc”. They are capable of holding about 1 gigabyte of data.
You know what’s weird about these discs ? Each one manages to actually store a gigabyte of data. Each disc has a CD portion and a GD portion. The CD portion occupies the first 45000 sectors and can be read in any standard CD drive. This area is divided between a brief data track and a brief (usually) audio track.
The GD region starts at sector 45000. Sometimes, it’s just one humongous data track that consumes the entire GD region. More often, however, the data track is split between the first track and the last track in the region and there are 1 or more audio tracks in between. But the weird thing is, the GD region is always full. I made a study of it (click for a larger, interactive graph) :
Some discs put special data or audio bonuses in the CD region for players to discover. But every disc manages to fill out the GD region. I checked up on a lot of those audio tracks that divide the GD data and they’re legitimate music tracks. So what’s the motivation ? Why would the data track be split in 2 pieces like that ?
I eventually realized that I probably answered this question in this blog post from 4 years ago. The read speed from the outside of an optical disc is higher than the inside of the same disc. When I inspect the outer data tracks of some of these discs, sure enough, there seem to be timing-sensitive multimedia FMV files living on the outer stretches.
One day, I’ll write a utility to take apart the split ISO-9660 filesystem offset from a weird sector.
-
avcodec/hap : add "compressor" option to Hap encoder to disable secondary compression
8 novembre 2016, par Tom Butterworthavcodec/hap : add "compressor" option to Hap encoder to disable secondary compression
The secondary compression in Hap is optional, this change exposes that option to
the user as some use-cases favour higher bitrate files to reduce workload
decoding.
Adds "none" or "snappy" as options for "compressor". Selecting "none" disregards
"chunks" option : chunking is only of benefit decompressing Snappy.Reviewed-by : Martin Vignali <martin.vignali@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by : Tom Butterworth <bangnoise@gmail.com> -
FFmpeg CRF control using x264 vs libvpx-vp9
19 octobre 2016, par igonI have some experience using ffmpeg with x264 and I wanted to do a comparison with libvpx-vp9. I tested a simple single pass encoding of a raw video, varying the crf settings and presets both with x264 and libvpx-vp9. I am new to libvpx and I followed this and this carefully but I might have still specified wrong combination of parameters since the results I get do not make much sense to me.
For x264 I did :
ffmpeg -i test_video.y4m -c:v libx264 -threads 1 -crf <crf> -preset <preset> -y output.mkv
</preset></crf>and obtained the following results :
codec , settings , time , PSNR ,bitrate
libx264,['-crf', '20', '-preset', 'fast'],13.1897280216, 42.938337 ,15728
libx264,['-crf', '20', '-preset', 'medium'],16.80494689, 42.879753 ,15287
libx264,['-crf', '20', '-preset', 'slow'],25.1142120361, 42.919206 ,15400
libx264,['-crf', '30', '-preset', 'fast'],8.79047083855, 37.975141 ,4106
libx264,['-crf', '30', '-preset', 'medium'],9.936599016, 37.713778 ,3749
libx264,['-crf', '30', '-preset', 'slow'],13.0959510803, 37.569511 ,3555This makes sense to me, given a crf value you get a value of PSNR and changing the preset can decrease the bitrate but increase the time to encode.
For libvpx-vp9 I did :
ffmpeg -i test_video.y4m -c:v libvpx-vp9 -threads 1 -crf <crf> -cpu-used <effort> -y output.mkv
</effort></crf>First of all I thought from tutorials online that the
-cpu-used
option is equivalent to-preset
in x264. Is that correct ? If so what is the difference with-quality
? Furthermore since the range goes from -8 to 8 I assumed that negative values where the fast options while positive values the slowest. Results I get are very confusing though :codec , settings , time , PSNR ,bitrate
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '20', '-cpu-used', '-2'],19.6644911766,32.54317,571
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '20', '-cpu-used', '0'],176.670887947,32.69899,564
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '20', '-cpu-used', '2'],20.0206270218,32.54317,571
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '30', '-cpu-used', '-2'],19.7931578159,32.54317,571
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '30', '-cpu-used', '0'],176.587754965,32.69899,564
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '30', '-cpu-used', '2'],19.8394429684,32.54317,571Bitrate is very low and PSNR seems unaffected by the
crf
setting (and very low compared to x264). The-cpu-used
setting has very minimal impact and also seems that -2 and 2 are the same option.. What am I missing ? I expected libvpx to take more time to encode (which is definitely true) but at the same time higher quality transcodes. What parameters should I use to
have a fair comparison with x264 ?Edit : Thanks to @mulvya and this doc I figured that to work in crf mode with libvpx I have to add
-b:v 0
. I re-ran my tests and I get :codec , settings , time , PSNR ,bitrate
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '20', '-b:v', '0', '-cpu-used', '-2'],57.6835780144,45.111158,17908
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '20', '-b:v', '0', '-cpu-used', '0'] ,401.360313892,45.285367,17431
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '20', '-b:v', '0', '-cpu-used', '2'] ,57.4941239357,45.111158,17908
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '30', '-b:v', '0', '-cpu-used', '-2'],49.175855875,42.588178,11085
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '30', '-b:v', '0', '-cpu-used', '0'] ,347.158324957,42.782194,10935
libvpx-vp9,['-crf', '30', '-b:v', '0', '-cpu-used', '2'] ,49.1892938614,42.588178,11085PSNR and bitrate went up significantly by adding
-b:v 0