4 ms·
> It may be worth noting that Chafa uses more of the block symbols, but the printouts it makes look ugly to me, like a JPEG image compressed with very low quali
by Vampiero 2y ago
> It may be worth noting that Chafa uses more of the block symbols, but the printouts it makes look ugly to me, like a JPEG image compressed with very low quality.
It may be worth nothing that Chafa can be configured to only use ASCII 219
- capitainenemo 2y agoYeah, that's one of many things I love about chafa. The charsets are very flexible allowing me to get something decentish working even in the limited default fonts and no fallbacks in putty on windows. Or blacklist stuff that looked bad in my preferred linux font. Another nice thing about it is the author made an ffmpeg patch (playable using -c:v rawvideo -pix_fmt rgba -f chafa) that was pretty darn handy for quickly triaging videos on a remote server without having to relay them to a more usable terminal. And it has sixel support too if you happen to be in a terminal that supports that. And since he's delegating to imagemagick, it has loaded every image format I've thrown at it, including RAW.
- pbmahol 2y agoimagemagick does not support RAW video formats.
- capitainenemo 2y agoI think you misunderstood. The video is using ffmpeg. I was talking about RAW from a camera which my imagemagick delegates to ufraw. But running ldd on my copy of chafa I see it now links to a ton of graphic libs directly.