[FFmpeg-devel] Intel IPP H264 encoder
Fri Dec 4 02:06:48 CET 2009
"Erik Van Grunderbeeck" <erik at arawix.com> writes:
>> Tested compare
>> o) X264, snapshot-20091017-2245, build 77, MingW compiled
>> o) Intel IPP 6.1 H264, libs 5.1 (my license), Intel compiler 11 compiled.
>> Encoded as base profile, level 13, no b frames (I know, but that's the
>> format and most people seem to encode for that).
>> o) X264: 2.32 seconds (mean average on 5 runs)
>> o) Intel IPP: 2.25 seconds (mean average on 5 runs)
>>Settings? Samples? Input? Output? There's zero information in your
> Output: base profile, level 13, no b frames.
> Input: wmv, 320x240
> You can call that zero information I suppose. There's also zero
> information in your question.
A question is a request for information. If he already had it, he
wouldn't need to ask.
> What does settings mean? Samples? (bitrate? Quality? Container? The
The values of whatever parameters are configurable in the encoder.
> amount of sugar in my coffee?)
The amount of crack you smoked.
>> is that it is thus possible to build a full LGPL dll version of FFMpeg
>> with H264/Xvid encoding supported. No excuse for anyone to fail GPL.
>>So instead of GPL, we should use a proprietary encoder? Talk about
>>out of the frying pan and into the fire.
>>I'm quite sure that IPP is not licensed under the LGPL, especially
>>given that you talk about "your license" of it.
> I am just passing information, not stating the one and only precious x264
> encoder should be replaced.
> Your (L-)GLP license statement makes little sense btw (as the IPP encoders
> do not need to be compiled into the Libav* dll's. Unless you want to take
> "viral" to a new level). "My license" refers to the part one purchases from
> Intel (the binaries).
> Sigh. Trying to suggest/state anything on this mailing list that touches the
> [zealot] opinions of people is hopeless.
> Lighten up. Go have a smoke or something.
Yeah, like you did.
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel