[FFmpeg-devel] ffmpeg nvenc

Philip Langdale philipl at overt.org
Wed Dec 17 10:41:44 CET 2014

On 2014-12-17 01:34, Agatha Hu wrote:
> Repost
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Agatha Hu
> Sent: 2014年12月17日 15:49
> To: 'Philip Langdale'; 'ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org'
> Cc: Abhijit Patait; Eric Young; Jaime Ieong; Andrew Fear; Stephen
> Warren; Andy Ritger
> Subject: RE: ffmpeg nvenc
> Hi Phil,
> We've almost finished the license part in our patch and plan to commit
> to ffmpeg community, but we found ffmpeg add Timo's nvenc patch days
> ago, so our patch is incompatible with the TOT version.
> Should we (1)Add libnvenc on TOT branch but without changing Timo's
> work or (2)Change nvenc on TOT branch like an incremental patch on
> Timo's work. In fact I would prefer (1), as it requires less work.
> Agatha Hu

(Reposting my direct reply)

Yes, the world has moved on, I'm afraid. This means that (1) isn't going 
be an easy sell. You'd need to demonstrate that it's so much better than 
patch that it's worth deleting his and replacing it with yours. The 
first thing
you need to do is remove the abstraction layer, because that's not going 
to fly
upstream, and it doesn't achieve anything useful. After that's cleaned 
up, I
think you can make a decent argument that it's a more maintainable
implementation, especially if you and your team are going to maintain it 
- you
have a much better understanding of the hardware features than Timo, 
myself, or
anyone else outside nvidia - given the sparse API documentation.

The other alternative is to take Timo's as a base, add the x264 options 
and then expose more features there. I don't know which will end up 
being more
work for you.

I'm still sitting on the improvements I made for b-frames etc, and I'll 
post those after you republish the code.

Initially, I would still suggest posting the patch as-is (with the 
licensing) so you can get more feedback from other people.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list