←back to thread

FFmpeg 8.0

(ffmpeg.org)
985 points gyan | 9 comments | 22 Aug 25 15:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.021s | source | bottom
Show context
pmarreck ◴[22 Aug 25 15:35 UTC] No.44985875[source]▶
Impressed anytime I have to use it (even if I have to study its man page again or use an LLM to construct the right incantation or use a GUI that just builds the incantation based on visual options). Becoming an indispensable transcoding multitool.

I think building some processing off of Vulkan 1.3 was the right move. (Aside, I also just noticed yesterday that Asahi Linux on Mac supports that standard as well.)

replies(3): >>44985906 #>>44986225 #>>44986323 #
Culonavirus ◴[22 Aug 25 15:39 UTC] No.44985906[source]▶
> incantation

FFmpeg arguments, the original prompt engineering

replies(4): >>44985969 #>>44985984 #>>44986587 #>>44987357 #
jeanlucas ◴[22 Aug 25 15:44 UTC] No.44985984[source]▶
nope, that would be handling tar balls

ffmpeg right after

replies(4): >>44986062 #>>44986260 #>>44986660 #>>44987094 #
porridgeraisin ◴[22 Aug 25 15:51 UTC] No.44986062[source]▶
Personally I never understood the problem with tar balls.

The only options you ever need are tar -x, tar -c (x for extract and c for create). tar -l if you wanna list, l for list.

That's really it, -v for verbose just like every other tool if you wish.

Examples:

  tar -c project | gzip > backup.tar.gz
  cat backup.tar.gz | gunzip | tar -l
  cat backup.tar.gz | gunzip | tar -x
You never need anything else for the 99% case.
replies(7): >>44986123 #>>44986158 #>>44986160 #>>44986179 #>>44986359 #>>44986655 #>>44992428 #
1. tombert ◴[22 Aug 25 16:00 UTC] No.44986179[source]▶
Yeah I never really understood why people complain about tar; 99% of what you need from it is just `tar -xvf blah.tar.gz`.
replies(2): >>44986239 #>>44986693 #
2. aidenn0 ◴[22 Aug 25 16:05 UTC] No.44986239[source]▶
You for got the -z (or -a with a recent gnutar).
replies(1): >>44986300 #
3. adastra22 ◴[22 Aug 25 16:09 UTC] No.44986300[source]▶
It’s no longer needed. You can leave it out and it auto-detects the file format.
4. CamperBob2 ◴[22 Aug 25 16:44 UTC] No.44986693[source]▶
What value does tar add over plain old zip? That's what annoys me about .tar files full of .gzs or .zips (or vice versa) -- why do people nest container formats for no reason at all?

I don't use tape, so I don't need a tape archive format.

replies(4): >>44987064 #>>44987118 #>>44988357 #>>44989861 #
5. diggernet ◴[22 Aug 25 17:13 UTC] No.44987064[source]▶
A tar of gzip or zip files doesn't make sense. But gzipping or zipping a tar does.

Gzip only compresses a single file, so .tar.gz lets you bundle multiple files. You can do the same thing with zip, of course, but...

Zip compresses individual files separately in the container, ignoring redundancies between files. But .tar.gz (and .tar.zip, though I've rarely seen that combination) bundles the files together and then compresses them, so can get better compression than .zip alone.

6. fullstop ◴[22 Aug 25 17:17 UTC] No.44987118[source]▶
zip doesn't retain file ownership or permissions.
replies(1): >>44987176 #
7. diggernet ◴[22 Aug 25 17:22 UTC] No.44987176{3}[source]▶
Good point. And if I remember right, tar allows longer paths than zip.
8. beagle3 ◴[22 Aug 25 18:53 UTC] No.44988357[source]▶
The zip directory itself is uncompressed, and if you have lots of small files with similar names, zipping the zip makes a huge difference. IIRC in the HVSC (C64 SID music archive), the outer zip used to save another 30%.
9. dns_snek ◴[22 Aug 25 21:11 UTC] No.44989861[source]▶
Plain old zip is tricky to parse correctly. If you search for them, you can probably find about a dozen rants about all the problems of working with ZIP files.