Yeah, good point re: ABS, and true, gstreamer's ffmpeg may not be as good. I withdraw my suggestions :)
-AT On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Paride Legovini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:47:03AM -0700, Andrei Thorp wrote: >> Well, that's a decent point also -- if gstreamer can use ffmpeg as a >> backend, does it not superscede ffmpeg? It's reasonable to assume that >> this means that gstreamer "supports all of ffmpeg plus a little bit of >> extra". > > Well, actually I see some unuseful complexity in this approach (you need > both gstreamer and ffmpeg for playing videos), and I think it slows down > the adoption of the latest software releases, as a new ffmpeg has to be > included in gstreamer, and so on. > > But there's another point: I *think*, but I'm absolutely not sure, that > the ffmpeg gstreamer plugin does not support all the codecs that ffmpeg > supports natively, because of licensing problem. AFAIK, ffmpeg aims to > support a large set of codecs, even if there're patent issues, while > gstreamer is more careful about these issues, and probably has stripped > down ffmpeg. > > p. > >
