3 ms·

Yeah I do think there is a performance bottleneck here with WASM being quite a bit slower than native performance. But I think the idea is that WASM performance

Yeah I do think there is a performance bottleneck here with WASM being quite a bit slower than native performance. But I think the idea is that WASM performance is only going to get better as the technology keeps evolving, and that gap will be bridged. I'd say the overall performance of the tool itself is a bit mixed. There are some task where it performances really well (trimming, converting photos to montage) but some where it is horrible(transcoding to VP9)

kevincox 6y ago
I agree. It will keep getting better and I would much rather have these things available than not. It would be cool if the site provided the raw ffmpeg command line so that you could use it as a command builder and run it locally for large or batch jobs. Then you can choose between security and convenience or max performance. The notes you mentioned sound like fundamental ffmpeg issues rather than problems with the implementation of this tool. It can usually trim without transcoding (much of) the file and encoding VP9 is notoriously slow.
- dylan604 6y ago
  >Then you can choose between security and convenience or max performance. How does running a transcode job in a browser provide "security and convenience" vs a native app?
  - cryogenicplanet 6y ago
    It does for non technical users or someone who wants to do a one off transcode job. Most people wouldn't be comfortable using FFmpeg in the command line. And for the people who are comfortable with that, this provide some convenience in not having to look up command(something I always do) but its never meant to be a replacement for hardcore FFmpeg users
  - kevincox 6y ago
    No need to manually install anything and sandboxing. Honestly if I had a suspicious video file I might prefer the browser option so that an ffmpeg exploit would not have access to my machine.

3 ms·

Yeah I do think there is a performance bottleneck here with WASM being quite a bit slower than native performance. But I think the idea is that WASM performance

by cryogenicplanet 6y ago

kevincox 6y ago
I agree. It will keep getting better and I would much rather have these things available than not. It would be cool if the site provided the raw ffmpeg command line so that you could use it as a command builder and run it locally for large or batch jobs. Then you can choose between security and convenience or max performance. The notes you mentioned sound like fundamental ffmpeg issues rather than problems with the implementation of this tool. It can usually trim without transcoding (much of) the file and encoding VP9 is notoriously slow.
- dylan604 6y ago
  >Then you can choose between security and convenience or max performance. How does running a transcode job in a browser provide "security and convenience" vs a native app?
  - cryogenicplanet 6y ago
    It does for non technical users or someone who wants to do a one off transcode job. Most people wouldn't be comfortable using FFmpeg in the command line. And for the people who are comfortable with that, this provide some convenience in not having to look up command(something I always do) but its never meant to be a replacement for hardcore FFmpeg users
  - kevincox 6y ago
    No need to manually install anything and sandboxing. Honestly if I had a suspicious video file I might prefer the browser option so that an ffmpeg exploit would not have access to my machine.