
Recherche avancée
Médias (91)
-
Les Miserables
9 décembre 2019, par
Mis à jour : Décembre 2019
Langue : français
Type : Textuel
-
VideoHandle
8 novembre 2019, par
Mis à jour : Novembre 2019
Langue : français
Type : Video
-
Somos millones 1
21 juillet 2014, par
Mis à jour : Juin 2015
Langue : français
Type : Video
-
Un test - mauritanie
3 avril 2014, par
Mis à jour : Avril 2014
Langue : français
Type : Textuel
-
Pourquoi Obama lit il mes mails ?
4 février 2014, par
Mis à jour : Février 2014
Langue : français
-
IMG 0222
6 octobre 2013, par
Mis à jour : Octobre 2013
Langue : français
Type : Image
Autres articles (68)
-
Personnaliser en ajoutant son logo, sa bannière ou son image de fond
5 septembre 2013, parCertains thèmes prennent en compte trois éléments de personnalisation : l’ajout d’un logo ; l’ajout d’une bannière l’ajout d’une image de fond ;
-
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 (...) -
Publier sur MédiaSpip
13 juin 2013Puis-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
Sur d’autres sites (10342)
-
avformat/matroskaenc : Don't waste bytes writing level 1 elements
20 avril 2019, par Andreas Rheinhardtavformat/matroskaenc : Don't waste bytes writing level 1 elements
Up until now, the length field of most level 1 elements has been written
using eight bytes, although it is known in advance how much space the
content of said elements will take up so that it would be possible to
determine the minimal amount of bytes for the length field. This
commit changes this.Signed-off-by : Andreas Rheinhardt <andreas.rheinhardt@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by : James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>- [DH] libavformat/matroskaenc.c
- [DH] tests/fate/matroska.mak
- [DH] tests/fate/wavpack.mak
- [DH] tests/ref/fate/aac-autobsf-adtstoasc
- [DH] tests/ref/fate/binsub-mksenc
- [DH] tests/ref/fate/rgb24-mkv
- [DH] tests/ref/lavf/mka
- [DH] tests/ref/lavf/mkv
- [DH] tests/ref/lavf/mkv_attachment
- [DH] tests/ref/seek/lavf-mkv
-
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
-
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