[FFmpeg-devel] new open source h.264 source

Gonzalo Garramuño ggarra
Thu Feb 21 00:47:06 CET 2008

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Ugh.  I guess the first task would be to de-C++ that code.  Or perhaps
> it's a not-so-subtle clue that this package is a waste of time.  After
> all, any sane person would have made this a C library, not C++.

Why?  After a very quick glance, it is quite good C++.  While the 
library is huge, the code is certainly much more readable to me than 
ffmpeg's source code (sorry for saying so).  Doing the same in C would 
involve 3 times the code.  There's some clever (and in this case 
justified) use of templates that simplify the code enormously.
Use of scons (yet still use bash scripts) and providing a copy of boost 
in their repository is certainly something I would call quite questionable.

> Has anyone seen any benchmarks of this code.  

Probably nothing has come out yet.  I do expect to have very good 
performance on a lot of the stuff it provides.  The library seems like 
it is basically SSE2 + Templates for a lot of common math, image and 
video functions.
It can probably still be made a little bit faster here and there.  The 
code seems to written with readability in mind.  The order of several 
loops could probably be reversed, there's not much use of clever bit 
shifting, etc.  (ie. all the low-level C type of coding that ffmpeg 
really excels at).

> BTW, what reputable company chooses to host
> something on sourceforge?

At this point in time, pretty much any large company or organization 
that is not against open source.  You'll find projects there from AMD, 
Intel, HP, ILM, AMPAS, ICC, etc.
It is indeed a pity that sourceforge is indeed so popular, as it has 
really fallen behind the times these days (old source control systems, 
cumbersome mailing lists, etc).

Gonzalo Garramu?o
ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar

AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
Xubuntu Gutsy

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list