avidemux vs qtdemux

[Sebastian Dröge]

On Fr, 2013-10-11 at 07:53 +0200, Jorge Fernandez Monteagudo wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the tips about tools to profiling!
> 
> I know the big time is spent in decoding and painting frames. My real pipeline
> is like this
> 
> gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location=video.mp4 ! qtdemux ! ffdec_mpeg4 ! omapfbsink
> 
> or
> 
> gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location=video.avi ! avidemux ! ffdec_mpeg4 ! omapfbsink
> 
> The omapfbsink is a custom item to do the conversion in NEON and painting directly to framebuffer
> but the only item I didn't thought about it, it was the qtdemux/avidemux, and that's the origin
> of my question, to know the advantages using one of them, from the CPU usage point of view.

Also note that depending on how the files are muxed, there could be
different file access patterns which could make a difference... if the
bottleneck is IO.

avidemux currently also creates a large seeking table data structure in
the very beginning, which could make qtdemux start faster in theory. But
as Nicolas said, no way to know until you profile it on your exact
platform with the use cases you're interested in, there's no generic
answer :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 966 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/gstreamer-devel/attachments/20131011/919e3a34/attachment-0001.pgp>