←back to thread

1113 points Bluestein | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
lupusreal ◴[] No.41281566[source]
> I never understood why VLC was so widely praised.

Because it's the one you can reasonably suggest to all your utterly nontechnical friends and relatives to get them to stop downloading random sketchy exe's from the internet to install codecs.

mpv, and mplayer before it, has always been better for me and I find VLC to be pretty shoddy. But when it comes to people like my mom, I don't hesitate to sing praise for VLC. In that context, VLC is the greatest thing since sliced bread and I don't muddy the waters by even mentioning mpv.

replies(2): >>41281703 #>>41282941 #
Bluestein ◴[] No.41281703[source]
> Because it's the one you can reasonably suggest to all your utterly nontechnical friends and relatives

I concurr.-

PS. On a related tangent the amount of unpaid "support" tech knowledgeable individuals are doing for (particularly) FAANG is enormous.-

replies(1): >>41283308 #
diggan ◴[] No.41283308{3}[source]
> PS. On a related tangent the amount of unpaid "support" tech knowledgeable individuals are doing for (particularly) FAANG is enormous.-

Which is exactly the same for every profession. If you have a plumber friend and have issues with plumbing, who you call first, a random contractor or your friend? Replace "plumber/plumbing" with any profession and the answer is usually the same, you call your friend first, at least to get some more understanding before reaching out to a contractor.

replies(2): >>41283441 #>>41289581 #
account42 ◴[] No.41289581{4}[source]
The difference is that if your plumber friend helps you out with your toilet, Big Plumbing Inc does not get your business.

If however your tech friends help you with Windows/Android/Apple issues, MS/Google/etc. still get paid and save up on support costs.

These two situations aren't even remotely comparable.

replies(1): >>41289607 #
1. Bluestein ◴[] No.41289607{5}[source]
> Windows/Android/Apple issues, MS/Google/etc. still get paid and save up on support costs.

This was kind of like what I was getting at: Kind of wondering what the total savings for FAANG on support costs would amount to, factoring in all this "offloaded" support that they hand off to their own customers (or, affiliated tech-savvy individuals).-