3 ms·
If you look at it as more of a "composable" interface (as the sibling poster suggested), it makes a lot more sense. No one is going to type out this one-liner
by danudey 6y ago
If you look at it as more of a "composable" interface (as the sibling poster suggested), it makes a lot more sense.
No one is going to type out this one-liner from scratch, or have an easy time understanding what it means by reading it, but as it's made up of a series of smaller, more easily understood commands, in a shell or Python script it could be vastly more legible and, dare I say it, usable.
This is also the reason why there are so many frontends to ffmpeg, to simplify various specific tasks. I can't count how many one-off apps I've seen that do one thing and do it well, and just ship a full copy of ffmpeg to do that one thing. Making an actual GUI for all of this would be just... insane, really, but it's so versatile and flexible that you can basically do anything with it.
- dmerrick 6y agoThe problem with calling ffmpeg multiple times in a script is you often waste compute time. If you can manage to cobble together a single command (as illegible as that may be), you might be able to do what you're looking to do in far less time
- innocenat 6y agoNo to mention you also loss quality (the generation loss) unless you use lossless format as intermediate.
- rezonant 6y ago> Making an actual GUI for all of this would be just... insane, really, but it's so versatile and flexible that you can basically do anything with it. Challenge accepted! (No seriously, that's what I'm working on)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lmm 6y agoMaybe what's missing is some kind of ffmpeg shell where you can build pipelines and then run them? A bit like spark-shell, or avisynth on windows?