Talk:FFmpeg/Archive 1

Archive 1

"How to" section

Maybe there should be a "how to" section to help people create builds of ffmpeg on various platforms, with additional directions to incorporate various external libraries, like zlib, into the build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.181.199 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 6 January 2006

No, this is Wikipedia, not the FFmpeg program documentation. A link would be fine, though DonDiego 10:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming

What does FF stand for? File format? --Scot.hale 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fast Forward", according to Fabrice: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2006-February/007707.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.56.194 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WEB ARCHIVE —User 000 name 01:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Can also be found here: http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2006-February/010325.html --Kbo206 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Differences between MEncoder and FFmpeg

Is this a place to describe the differences between MEncoder and FFmpeg ( I can't find a comparison anywhere )?--Scot.hale 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any comparison, but mplayer includes some libraries from FFmpeg (libavcodec and libavformat) which contain the entire code-base required to decode/encode videos using ffmpeg. The rest of ffmpeg is a simple encoder and decoder application and some video server tools. So, mencoder problems contains all of the ffmpeg features you care about and also some others through additional libraries. AlyM 08:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Download link does not work

The second link to download the windows exectuable does not allow Internet Explorer to connect. Which is a problem as IE is the default browser for windows clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.34.194 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 November 2006

Merge with libavcodec

Shouldn't the FFmpeg and the libavcodec wikipedia articles be merged into one article?, (I suggest that the libavcodec article be merged into the FFmpeg article as a subsection, plus maybe create another subsection for libavformat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamester17 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please sign your comments and always add them to the bottom of the article — this is where people will be looking for newer ones. See WP:TALK for more on talk page etiquette. -- intgr 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be merged. They refer to different things apparently - FFmpeg is the project and libavcodec is a part of it. I removed the merge tag. The Ubik 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think if the merge with libavcodec will be merged, but I don't think it's a good think. FFmpeg and libavcodec are differents projects, and many others projects use libavcodec. I know, it's an old discution, but there is a link on the libavcodec to speak about it on this page. --- Lolo32 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, don't merge. Different projects under different (incompatible) licenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.40.166 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not different projects. libavcodec is part of the FFmpeg project. The FFmpeg utility is almost only a wrapper around all the other libraries. Vitor 1234 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some technical points will help to clarify the matter. FFmpeg refers to a utility, that is, a program the user operates to perform a function/task/operation. Examples of utilities include MSWord, Registry Editor, and so fourth. Libavcodec, by contrast, refers to a codec (or more accuratly, a library of codecs). In simple terms it's like a method, or cypher, which a video or audio playing utility uses to understand (code/decode) the "language" in which the data has been written. So while many laymen may associate libavcodec with FFmpeg in much the same way the general public associates hamburgers with McDonalds, or at one time associated photocopying with Xerox when it was first invented, it would be erroneous to merge these two articles as they refer to two entirely different kinds of things. It would be akin to merging an article about the cola bean, with an article about Coca-Cola soft drink. Katrina 1980 (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Err, sorry but IMHO you are a little confused. FFmpeg is a project that develop some libraries, notably libavcodec and libavformat and some command line utilities (ffmpeg, ffplay and ffserver). The utilities are little more than just wrappers around the libraries, they are the one who do the bulk of the work. A better analogy would be Internet Explorer and the Trident engine. Vitor 1234 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal status references?

From the article:

For example, [European Union] nations do not recognize software patents and/or have laws expressly allowing reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability.

European Commission's Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (“Programs Directive”) states at Article 6 (among other things):

The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4(a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) these acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorized to do so; (b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in subparagraph (a); and (c) these acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability

The Recitals of the Program Directive help to interpret and clarify its meaning. They state (among other things):

a person having a right to use a computer program should not be prevented from performing acts necessary to observe, study or test the functioning of the program, provided that these acts do not infringe the copyright of the program; the unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the formof the code in which a copy of the computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author; nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4(a) and (b) are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs; in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder

well, I added it as a reference; maybe inline link would be better? what other references people need for that section? 91.124.48.228

Fair use rationale for Image:FFmpeg-logo.svg

Image:FFmpeg-logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Huge table

I think the huge table about FFmpeg's capabilities should not have been added. It was made from ffmpeg's help output, but forgets the important hint there, that decoders and encoders often do not share a name, and thus, the table has to be read with some "interpretation". As long as no agreement about removal is found, I will try to fix the entries. CE --62.178.80.242 (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the table removed, too. It is way too huge and detailed for the article, does not use correct terms and names and it also confuses formats with codecs.—J. M. (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Regression Tester (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

all compression codecs are patented? what about vorbis?

The article says, "At least all codecs [used by ffmpeg] that compress information could be claimed by patent holders." Is this true? I thought ffmpeg at least included vorbis, which compresses information and is not covered by any patent. Am I missing something? --Allen (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See Vorbis#Licensing. There are so many patents about multimedia compression technology and they are so broad-worded that one can never be sure that a format is not covered by any patent. --Vitor 1234 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest version

The latest version, ffmpeg 0.6 has now added support for Webm and VP8. As per the release notes here. --Xero (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

otoh, the latest released version (todays) has fixes for svq3 watermark decoding and dv detection... --Regression Tester (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FFmpeg on Ubuntu and OpenSuse

Regarding the two useful sources for the claim that FFmpeg is not distributed by (some) major Linux distributions: Nowadays, Ubuntu contains uncut versions of MPlayer and vlc, both containing complete libavcodec libraries. OpenSuse provides links to the packman repository in its default configuration, packman itself provides complete versions of FFmpeg, MPlayer and vlc, so apart from seeing no "stripped version of FFmpeg" anywhere, I doubt there is any limitation for users (although the distributions claim there is). --Regression Tester (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Official logo updated

The new logo is here: http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-logo.png

From the home page:

Today FFmpeg has received the first legal threat in its existence. Its from a previous root admin of FFmpeg, who now is root admin of the Libav fork of FFmpeg. He claims copyright on the zigzag part of our logo. It has to be noted that he said 4 years ago Credit to whoever came up with the zigzag idea

Update May 31/June 1:We have replaced the logo with a better looking one drawn by Hervé Flores.

• http://ffmpeg.org/. Retrieved 20 June 2011.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.99.150 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Uploaded HairyWombat 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Types of conversions?

Is there a source of what types of conversions this can handle, e.g. FLV to AVI? I would have thought that this information would have been included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.106.36 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article clearly mentions that both AVI and FLV are supported file formats. Do you think this can be improved?--Regression Tester (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How to convert an audio file and a still image into an YouTube uploadable video file?

(I realize this isn't exactly the place for this, but it's a convenient place. Feel free to copy it elsewhere.)

After way too much trouble, I found that a combination of the -loop_input and -shortest options to ffmpeg will enable one to create a video file that will successfully upload to YouTube, starting from an audio file and a still image. Specifically, the command line is: (assuming .wav for the audio, .png for the image, and .avi for the video)

 ffmpeg -loop_input -shortest -f image2 -i ''image.png'' -f wav -i ''audio.wav'' ''output.avi''

Hope this helps someone! JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary

libfaac is a proprietary application for which the requirements of the GPL cannot be fulfilled, If users want to link FFmpeg against libfaac (to use libfaac as an AAC encoder), they have to compile FFmpeg as a proprietary application.--Regression Tester (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Regression Tester. I check the articlethat you gave (and some of its sources) but what you said is for the most part wrong: FFmpeg itself remains free and open-source and compiling it under with libfaac included does not seem to impose any restriction in terms of price of use and distribution. The only restriction that is imposed is that libfaac itself cannot be studied or reverse-engineered without its author's permission. So, generally speaking, no, that won't make the whole package proprietary but yes the project is not pure open-source and that must be mentioned in the article.

Regards, 08:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

FFmpeg disagrees with you. When you compile with the --enable-nonfree flag, as required for faac, the license then states that it is "unredistributable" meaning that you may not give out copies of the binary. You are still free to give out copies of the source code because the FFmpeg and faac sources say you can. Well, for faac you can at least point them to where they can download it for free.

The problem with faac's license is that it contains text which is not compatible with the (L)GPL. For that I direct you to the faac page: FAAC#Licensing. The most recent discussion (that I know of) about this in relation to FFmpeg starts here: http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2009-January/067743.html

As for how one should express this problem in an infobox, I think the way it is at present is a fairly clear and concise way of stating it. J Darnley (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, J Darnley. You say one can distribute FAAC itself but not FFmpeg? Very strange licensing terms! Anyway, I do not think the current representation is clear. It wasn't clear for me until you explained it and I cannot think how it may be clear for others. I strongly believe an explanation in form of footnote or article description is due, along with a link in the infobox. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

FAAC is proprietary software (that may be distributed under some terms), FFmpeg binaries may only be distributed under the terms of the LGPL or the GPL. The GPL contains some requirements that cannot be met by a binary that is linked against FAAC. So if you build FFmpeg linked against libraries that you may only distribute under the GPL (like xvid or x264) and FAAC, the resulting binary gets proprietary and may not be distributed. I will write a footnote explaining this.--Regression Tester (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And in case, you originally meant "Why would someone want to distribute free software as proprietary?" Some companies prefer proprietary software over free software (even if they are completely identical code-wise), please see http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2011-September/008832.html --Regression Tester (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Cross-platform?

I would like to contest the use of "cross-platform" in infobox because:

1. Cross-platform is not an operating system; and when it comes to infobox, it is vague if not outright peacock: First, does it mean "program that runs on any operating system" or "program that you can compile on any operating system"? Second, there is really no computer software that can run or be compiled for any operating system or even for reasonable group of modern ones. There is always huge restrictions. Generally speaking, you can never find a piece of code that works in one go on both , etc.
2. The second meaning of cross-platform ("program that you can compile on any operating system") is a technical developers term and does not concern the laymen for whom we are writing Wikipedia articles. Compiling is a very complex process, in comparison to download and purchase. not everyone's father, mother, grandfathers, grandmothers, wife, husband, partner, uncle, or aunt can do it. But all of them can do the downloading.

I propose that only the name of the operating systems for which there is compiled package should be listed. If it is really cross-platform, then parameters like "operating system" and "platform" should be removed.

And by the way, what it the difference between "Cross-platform" and "Multi-platform"?

Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your first question: Since FFmpeg is written in C (as mentioned in the infobox), you have to compile it before being able to use it, so in the case of FFmpeg (and every software written for a classic compiler as opposed to a scripting language or runtime engine), Cross-platform means of course that a program both runs on any operating system and that a program can compile on (or did you mean for? That might make more sense) any operating system (both is what the first sentence on ffmpeg.org means). I completely agree with you that there (probably) is no computer program that compiles and runs on every operating system, but please note that FFmpeg runs (and is used) - among many others - on Linux and Android, Windows NT and Windows Mobile, so it is absolutely safe to assume it works on a reasonable group of modern operating systems. It runs on every POSIX-compatible system and Windows, but I believe cross-platform is significantly easier to understand than POSIX-compatible, esp. given that the POSIX standard is complex and afaik, no operating system completely implements it. (Since you typically cannot purchase FFmpeg, and no binaries are offered at all at ffmpeg.org, I don't understand your next sentence.)

The infobox contains one field for platform and one for operating system. FFmpeg does not only run on (very) different operating systems, it also contains optimisations for different platforms and runs on even more platforms (at least those that are supported by gcc, but note that other, non-gcc compilers can be used for compilation and are regularly tested), so I believe it makes sense to keep both lines (after all, software exists that runs on multiple platforms but only one operating system - for example OSX - and of course many projects compile on different platforms but only on a very limited number of operating systems. Please don't forget that not every (sufficiently complex) program that compiles with gcc automatically compiles on most platforms gcc supports, so being cross-platform is not even default for programs written for gcc.

Replacing Cross-platform (for which I believe sufficient sources exist) with Debian and Windows (which are only examples for supported operating systems afaict) is imo very misleading for a project that - apparently (reading the homepage) - has the goal of being available on every operating system people use.--Regression Tester (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New Project Name: libav

According to the website FFmpeg was not forked to libav, but replaced by it. FFmpeg itself is now only maintained for compatibility reasons. I believe that this page should now be moved to [Libav] and adjusted accordingly. The relevant items should also be updated to match the current details. I do not see myself as knowledgeable enough on the product to make these changes. Also, I see this as new issue rather than the one mentioned in "What about the Libav fork? It's even not mentioned here..." --Jaguar83 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally, that's not the FFmpeg website, so it has no authority for saying anything about FFmpeg. I think you misunderstood the sentence. "We, as a group of FFmpeg developers" means a part of the FFmpeg developers decided to leave FFmpeg. Another part of the FFmpeg developers decided to stay and continue developing FFmpeg. So there are two separate projects now. Both projects are alive, as you can see from their news archives. If FFmpeg was "only maintained for compatibility reasons", then I could not understand why the FFmpeg developers wrote "FFmpeg is moving faster than ever before" on their home page [1].—J. M. (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:J. M.. This appears to be an internecine war between factions, and Wikipedia should not take sides. There's no hurry. If FFMpeg dies on the vine and Libav survives, then maybe we should page-move at that time. TJRC (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, as when I ran ffmpeg in the new Ubuntu Precise, "only maintained for compatibility reasons" or similar was actually displayed in the help text. I guess we'll have see what happens. True, that there is no rush for this. --58.108.194.179 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Then you're talking about the Libav project's implementation of the command line program ffmpeg, not the FFmpeg project. It seems this whole section is based on a misunderstanding. 95.166.78.149 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What 95.166.78.149 said. Libav is saying that Libav is continuing to use (i.e., maintaining) the name FFmpeg for compatibility reasons. It says nothing about the FFmpeg project itself, and even if it did, because of the bitter rivalry between the two projects, nothing that either project says about the other should be considered as coming from an unbiased reliable source. TJRC (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Page move to FFmpeg/Libav

Since ffmpeg merges everything from libav still, and yet libav can be considered a different project by itself, at the very least the name for the article should include libav. I'm proposing the new name (and thus new page) should be FFmpeg/Libav. Amejia1 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the page has been moved. I cited the reason above and in addition, mentioned how libav has their own developers, are starting to have their own libraries (libavresample), starting to have their own utility programs (avconv), and are starting to have a diverging codebase (see the <avfilter/buffersink.h> header file from the two code trees). Amejia1 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge libavcodec page

The libavcodec page should be merged into the FFmpeg page. Multimedia is much more than just a bunch of codec algorithms. Every app that used libavcodec used any number of the other FFmpeg libraries as well (libavformat, libavutil, etc.). The libavcodec page was outdated anyway. Amejia1 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see talk:libavcodec#Merging_with_Libav.2FFFmpeg_pages; no need to discuss this in two places. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Seperate the supported formats from the article

I think the list of supported codecs, container formats, and the protocol is too long. Should we just move it all to "List of formats supported by FFmpeg"? Timothy Gu (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, can we move the list of codecs (both in FFmpeg and libavcodec) all to "List of formats supported by FFmpeg"? Timothy Gu (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I don't think this article is particularly long, the libavcodec page describes only (notable) codecs while this page also covers the (file) formats supported by libavformat.--Regression Tester (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot

Does someone wanna do another screenshot without 'testshit' in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.240.23 (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy the "improved" screenshot, it's now Zeranoe (no cross-compiler annotation), 2014, wider (using less space in the infobox), smaller (truepng+zopfli), and doesn't mention meep. WTFPL, Be..anyone (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IETF

The IETF is a rather open SDO compared with, say, ISO. By their rules everybody and her dog can submit Internet-Drafts following a few simple formatting and IP rules. I was this dog several times publishing drafts outside of any established IETF WG (and not conflicting with any existing WG, otherwise the publication chance as RFC would be about as good as a jump from stub to featured article here.)

Years ago somebody published a complete series of drafts in essence stating that IPv4 addresses are far from exhausted, because each bit can obviously count to three (empty, 0, 1) instead of only two, as everybody else erroneously believed, because Leibniz oversaw this minor detail some centuries ago. That's why some folks love the IETF. They even publish annual Fool's Day RFCs, but not all RFCs are standards, let alone any drafts.

However, after six months Internet Drafts expire, no matter how or by whom they were published. That's one of the mandatory boilerplate texts at the begin of all Internet Drafts. Authors are free to revive them, I also tested this several times, works like a charm.

But unmodified drafts only changing the date would be a bit too obvious after some cycles; only Microsoft tried to pull this for a syntactically invalid URL-scheme years ago in the ISO OOXML debate. The current SFTP draft expired three weeks ago, and it was not the work of an IETF WG.[2] The article here had to be updated, because quoting expired drafts as "IETF work" or even standard is bad style, roughly like a Wikipedia article after its NN deletion. Nobody says that something is wrong with the protocol, the draft, or the volunteer publishing it. Getting no traction happens, folks are busy with other (=their own) work. Some years ago that included updating decades old FTP standards (without security S) from ASCII to UTF-8. –89.204.137.42 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with FFmpeg? -- intgr [talk] 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

SFTP on the subject page, so far the IETF didn't manage to create a standard (published as RFC) for it. The difference is a single colon on the page, this section explains the last change in "remove colon, add colon, remove colon". –82.113.106.13 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the Libav fork? It's even not mentioned here...

What about the Libav fork? The decission is unclear, but it seems related to the project management. Something similar to EGCS or it's even deeper? I just want to say: Don't be afraid of forking, it's what makes Free Software technologically and socially better. The most adapted one will survive, this is an organic system :) 87.217.11.95 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I came over here hoping for an overview of the whole leadership debate / site takeover thing (it's all over the ffmpeg mailing lists) and was surprised to find nothing on it ... but I guess that will have to wait until there's better (and neutral) coverage of it? John lindgren (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck finding a neutral source on that! --Compn (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)compn

As I wondered what the big difference between FFmpeg and Libav was (since both are mentioned in the libavcodec article as the providers; it says "It is provided by FFmpeg project or Libav project", which is a bit confusing...), I made a google search on ffmpeg vs libav. There seems to be a lot of confusion concerning the fork on different forums, or to what the big difference between the two projects really is. Anyway, LWN.net has written a number of short articles about it. Among others:

• FFmpeg turmoil (January 19, 2011)
• FFmpeg fork becomes libav (March 14, 2011)

The articles in turn link to other articles and also to some mails. Apparently, the fork arose from a dispute over management of the project, but it's difficult to say much more than that about it today. —Kri (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please split the article. This is a mess. There's no way ffmpeg and libav could be seen as one project anymore.--88.73.0.15 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The way the "fork" was carried out and certain related actions are more notable than libav, IMO; as with "Mplayer2", I have doubts it will endure at all. Unfortunately due to the bad blood I think if we omit some of the libav info we have now, people will squabble, and if we have two full articles it will be a largely redundant competition between editors who prefer one or the other... so it doesn't seem so bad how it is ATM, with a few brief mentions and a redundant infobox. 2¢ ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Both Mplayer2 and Libav teams thank you for your 2¢. After more than one year after the fork, with the current pace of development and given the different featureset could we please have an article on our own? LucaUBarbato (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Seems that Debian is removing ffmpeg and only going libav, which has a different syntax. I don't have a horse in this race (actually was surprised to learn of the split :( ) but certainly libav is notable and needs its own page. I don't know how to do that or familiar enough with the controversy to do that, but as a completely disinterested observer, I came to Wikipedia seeking answers, and Wikipedia doesn't have really any info on this. (btw thanks for the previous LWN links, Kri!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.160.122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No that was wrong and possibly FUD. Ffmpeg is stronger than ever these days. In fact, the group that split has rejoined some time ago already - see mailing list here https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-July/176489.html - wikipedia should integrate this. 2A02:8388:1602:A780:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Libav is effectively dead these days. Development has stopped and Debian has switched back to FFmpeg. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)