←back to thread

1113 points Bluestein | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.635s | source
Show context
lairv ◴[] No.41278203[source]
I use it to inspect video frames by frames, particularly being able to go back one frame. VLC doesn't support it, this thread about the feature is hilarious https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=120627
replies(19): >>41278382 #>>41278499 #>>41278639 #>>41278719 #>>41279342 #>>41279364 #>>41279561 #>>41279827 #>>41279842 #>>41279920 #>>41280125 #>>41281214 #>>41281733 #>>41282953 #>>41283275 #>>41284169 #>>41287180 #>>41289348 #>>41289743 #
j1elo ◴[] No.41278719[source]
Wow those answers are indeed funny. I agree that as an OSS dev/maintainer, it's easy to fall on the vice of over-generalization and crusade for the perfect solution, and it feels that's exactly what happened there.

> this feature is algorithmically impossible

> You're just looking at one specific video, not the general problem.

> is not generally possible.

As a fellow multimedia dev, man, who cares? Sometimes we forget that software ought to be useful, not hypothetical ideals of truth. Just implement the feature for those codecs that support it and which probably are in the 98% percentile of what users actually use, regardless of the damned "general case".

Or accept and announce shamelessly that you don't have either the knowledge or the development resources to tackle such a complex feature. But excuses about not being possible for absolutely every possible codec in a completely generic way is just denying that the world is just a chaotic and dirty place where things are not ideal nor perfect. Just give your users a real-world solution (or rejection).

replies(7): >>41279461 #>>41279707 #>>41280296 #>>41280441 #>>41281134 #>>41281153 #>>41284201 #
sebastos ◴[] No.41280296[source]
Disagree!

VLC is what it is today because the authors understood video standards enough to make the _right_ abstractions that could generalize to ~every video format ever. That is no easy task. Video container standards are utterly perverse, and seem to delight in stomping over even the most innocent intuitions about what you would expect to find in a stream of bits that purports to contain "video". They often refuse to make even basic promises, like "the first frame's timestamp starts at 0" or "every parcel of data has a timestamp". Seemingly reasonable ideas that a neophyte might propose, like "suppose we store the video's framerate-" must be immediately interrupted with "you FOOL, there IS no framerate, nothing can be certain, this video might not even have frames, it might in fact be an interactive gift basket experience merely PRETENDING to be an mp4-". That's just the nature of the beast.

A playback architecture that can wrangle all of that cruelty into a consistent experience was hard won. Of course they're not eager to throw new features into the mix that will pollute that mental model, and suddenly introduce thousands of codec-vs-player-feature checks that were heretofore ruled out in principle. At a certain point, the architecture is sacred, and it's the only thing making VLC maintainable. If a feature doesn't work for everything, it doesn't work.

replies(12): >>41280388 #>>41280399 #>>41280530 #>>41280544 #>>41280813 #>>41280857 #>>41280938 #>>41281616 #>>41282720 #>>41282896 #>>41284083 #>>41289506 #
sph ◴[] No.41280857[source]
You speak as if VLC is the pinnacle of video player technology. I know it is an open source darling, but it's been a buggy, overengineered mess since forever, which is why many use alternatives as mpv, IINA when I used macOS, SMplayer, etc.

On fact, with all due respect, I never understood why VLC was so widely praised. It is the only player to stutter for me on Windows, to get lost in its settings page, to have a terrible playlist implementation that's forced upon you, doesn't handle corrupted media as well as others, etc. mpv on the other hand does one thing and does it very well.

I'll skip ranting about VLC for Android TV this time

replies(8): >>41281101 #>>41281110 #>>41281164 #>>41281566 #>>41281622 #>>41282149 #>>41282172 #>>41283255 #
metroholografix ◴[] No.41281164[source]
I always saw VLC as subpar. A typical case of software that's just trying to copy what the pioneers do. As we all know, mediocrity it not antithetical to popularity, and VLC has become very popular indeed.

However, it never pushed the envelope in terms of codecs, features and performance and as a result was never at the forefront of opensource video playing: mplayer got the ball rolling with rapid breakthroughs including hardware acceleration (e.g. /dev/mga_vid) before standards such as xvideo even existed and that spirit of technical excellence has been passed on to Mpv which remains at the pinnacle.

replies(1): >>41281976 #
diggan ◴[] No.41281976[source]
> I always saw VLC as subpar. A typical case of software that's just trying to copy what the pioneers do.

What pioneer is/was VLC trying to copy? Media Player Classic? Windows Media Player? Before VLC, the ecosystem of video players was a mess, and if you came across a format you didn't already had installed codecs for, chances were you couldn't play that file. But VLC always could play it, no matter what file, as long as it said it was a video file.

> However, it never pushed the envelope in terms of codecs

VLC literally took over the world because you could install VLC and VLC only, and stop having to care about codecs at all, at the time at least. Maybe today it's different, because the ideas of VLC already spread, but at the time, things were different.

I personally use mpv most of the times today, but when I got started with computers and didn't understand as much as I do now, installing codecs to be able to view some video I just downloaded was a pretty confusing task. CCCP (Combined Community Codec Pack) for MPC helped a lot, but to even get to that point took some time.

replies(1): >>41282183 #
1. nubinetwork ◴[] No.41282183[source]
Wasn't CCCP bundled with malware or something back in the day?
replies(1): >>41282458 #
2. diggan ◴[] No.41282458[source]
Not that I'm aware of, nor can I find any sources talking about it. Maybe you're confusing it with DivX that did something like that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6409888)? Both were popular during the same timeframe, so not impossible you're confusing the two.
replies(1): >>41282750 #
3. nubinetwork ◴[] No.41282750[source]
Hmm... possibly. Funny how my memory works sometimes. ;)