Editor Tools Programmer Project (split)

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:26 am

Likewise

User ID: 1004367
Login Name (User Name): absolutedestiny

kmv · Post by **kmv** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:59 pm

Cool.

OK guys, give me a bit to get my shit together and we will have ourselves a project! I'm rather looking forward to this.

Sorry I'm not ready instantaneously – in a classic example of why this is free, something urgent has landed in my lap. Don't worry though I should be "with it" by this time tomorrow.

Things to do (in no particular order):
- Setup CVS for the code that is already available
- Notify owners of existing code, tell them what is happening
- Create a project to do list
- Configure the SourceForge project
- Have a call for coders on the above list
- Create initial builds for existing code
- Sort out some kind of roadmap for the bigger items
- Kick off design
- Kick off coding
- Build some web pages for the SourceForge project

The existing wish list from Ian is:
- HuffYUV with YV12 support
- AVS plugin with better resizing (possibly selectable via gui?)
- Resizer/cropper application - similar to gknot but small and specific
- Quicktime port of HuffYUV
- HUffYUV with 4:4:4 YUV support
- AVI Header editor - fourcc, frame rate and copyright info editor. A less bloated ABCavi, basically.
- Blended fields IVTC - telecide that can detect the pattern of time-based telecine as see in Evangelion and various other old anime Maybe look into the blending patterns of common NTSC to PAL conversions
- Installed Codecs Editor - a gui which shows what codecs are installed and under what fourcc - allows you to join 4CC to different dlls, perhaps include direct show decoders too?

I would like to add:
- Cross platform everything, specifically: Windows, Mac OSX, Unix (Linux distros).

Would anyone like to comment/add/subtract to the above wish lists?

BTW: As the starting point for HuffYUV I was thinking of branching from v2.2.0 (as opposed to v2.1.1). Comments?

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:57 pm

I'll buy it.

UID: 1005019
Name: tab_is_on_sf (original, no?)

BTW, why not just yank the YV12 Huffyuv source out of ffmpeg.. or better yet, straight out of ffdshow/vfw? Porting it to a standalone codec would be a bit of a hassle, but far less than reinventing the wheel I'd think :|

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:45 pm

Although I can't code, I have a few suggestions for the HuffYUV codec if its not too much trouble.
1) A reduced resolution mode like is in Shodan's most recent build.
2) Optimize channels that contain no data. The reason for this is two-fold. For one, making an encode that contains a lot of pure black frames will still end up being really large for some reason. Also, if the alpha channel could be optimized to take up practically no space when its empty, then there wouldn't be a need to have a checkbox to turn it on and off, and you wouldnt sometimes waste space because you forgot to turn it off. Optimization like this seems like it could be fairly simple, just set a boolean value telling the codec if the channel is empty or not

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:57 pm

kmv wrote: BTW: As the starting point for HuffYUV I was thinking of branching from v2.2.0 (as opposed to v2.1.1). Comments?

doom9 users have reported many crashes and bugs with 2.2.0; I'm not sure if that'd be such a good idea.

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:58 pm

trythil wrote:
kmv wrote: BTW: As the starting point for HuffYUV I was thinking of branching from v2.2.0 (as opposed to v2.1.1). Comments?
doom9 users have reported many crashes and bugs with 2.2.0; I'm not sure if that'd be such a good idea.

But but... It has a bigger number! It must be better! %

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:06 pm

BogoSort wrote:
trythil wrote:
kmv wrote: BTW: As the starting point for HuffYUV I was thinking of branching from v2.2.0 (as opposed to v2.1.1). Comments?
doom9 users have reported many crashes and bugs with 2.2.0; I'm not sure if that'd be such a good idea.
But but... It has a bigger number! It must be better! %

Hah, that reminds me...

"Our Scheme interpreter runs in O(n^14), and bigger numbers are better, so it must be better!"

-- some Programming Language Concepts student

Seriously, though, I think 2.1.1 would be a better choice. It's known to be stable, and as Tab has pointed out, there's lots of YV12 code we could snag / adapt.

BogoSort · Post by **BogoSort** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:10 pm

trythil wrote:"Our Scheme interpreter runs in O(n^14), and bigger numbers are better, so it must be better!"

-- some Programming Language Concepts student

It's totally better than O(2^n), after all 14 > 2.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:23 pm

Can we get an update here? It's been a week, with nothing visible happening....

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:14 am

Kalium wrote:Can we get an update here? It's been a week, with nothing visible happening....

Yeah, I'd like to know what's going on, too.

I think that kmv will fill us in when he gets his stuff together, though -- I know what it's like to have important tasks to finish...