Camera Man <i.like.privacy.too@...> writes: > e.g., for (2) there might be a way to multiplex macroblocks from > different pictures, without actually decoding them to image and > re-encoding (thus avoiding the motion compensation estimation, > which is super expensive, and the effects of requantization) > for (1), there might be a way to increase the picture size to e.g > 1280x1000, and somehow encode the timestamp into the new 40 pixels > (again, without decoding and re-encoding everything?)
While both may be possible in theory (I don't know) it would certainly require some effort to program this. (It is not supported by current FFmpeg.) > And assuming that I have to re-encode, is there a some > hw-assisted encoder supported by ffmpeg that would be able to do > this encoding in real time and without eating too many watts? I thought for any given hardware encoder, there is a software encoder that is both faster (fps) and produces better quality (but I did not test myself) ;-) But seriously: What encoder are you using with what options? I would be surprised if that couldn't be accelerated. And no, FFmpeg does not support hardware encoders. Apart from "patch welcome", I assumed above is the reason nobody sent one. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ Libav-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-user
