Talk:Libavcodec

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

old[edit]

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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamester17 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No it shouldn't be merged. This would unnecessary clutter the FFmpeg article. They are two different things like David and Igor Oistrakh :) I removed the merge tag. The Ubik 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

MPEG-2 is "made up" of many patents. Therefore, how can this library be free (as in speech)? --Abdull 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is MPEG-4 and other formats (almost everything in the multimedia area is covered by patents). I'm not a lawyer, but I think that releasing source code does not violate patents - it's up to the users to use compiled binary versions which may or may not infringe various patents. Besides, there are countries (Europe etc.) where "software patents" do not apply. -- J. M. 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFmpeg recently added support for VP5 and VP6 according to their irc channel, I'll add it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Notability and sources[edit]

I previously tagged this article questioning whether it meets the criteria for notability and its lack of third party reliable sources. These tags were replaced with a link to afterdawn.com.

Afterdawn.com may not be a reliable source. I have not seen it used as such before. The front page links to recent news items on other sites which does not go very far to establish it as an independent source. The notability requirement also requires several sources to be considered notable. This library of software may be used by other more famous pieces of software but that does not mean it is notable.

This article would be better off to comply with the polices of Wikipedia in these areas. Calling attention to necessary improvements that is not a bad thing it is a good thing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional links can be added, too, although I'm not sure why, as the introduction only says what libavcodec is, and then the article lists supported formats and software using it. So I don't know what else could be added here. Anyway, if libavcodec is not notable, then I don't know what is. libavcodec is the most important open-source multimedia piece of software, the whole open-source multimedia world depends on it. Millions of people are using it.—J. M. (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I did two things:

Added a couple of external links (including links to the FFmpeg website—please note that this is acceptable: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" (the links to ffmpeg.org only confirm the most basic information), and therefore removed the Primarysources template, because the article does not need more sources. The Citing sources article explicitly says that citations should be mainly added for "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" plus in a couple of other, irrelevant cases. The libavcodec article only states obvious facts like "libavcodec is a part of FFmpeg", "it is an open-source project" and "multimedia players and editors use it for decoding and encoding", which are just trivial, non-controversial facts that are unlikely to be challenged.
Re-added the Afterdawn link—I have read the Verifiability policy and and I can't see why it cannot be added as a reliable source, as it, in my opinion, does not violate the policy in any way. It is not a weblog, forum, mailing list, wiki or a personal website. It is a well-known technology website specialised in digital multimedia, run by an international team. If you feel this link violates some Wikipedia policy, please say which one exactly ("I have not seen it used as a reliable source before" does not count).
Removed the notability template, because firstly, there's a sufficient number of links in the article now, secondly, calling the most important open-source multimedia product non-notable is absurd. For example, libavcodec is the heart and soul, the most essential, crucial component of virtually any open-source, cross-platform video player, as well as countless other multimedia pieces of software, open-source and commercial. MPlayer (and all its GUIs), VLC, xine (and all its frontends), to name a few— these players would be nothing without libavcodec, it is their most important component (they would not be able to play video without it). Now, let's take a look at some numbers. VLC: over 100 million downloads just for version 0.8.6. Avidemux (a video editor which, again, would be nothing without libavcodec, its most important component): over 3 million downloads. Saying that something so immensely popular, important and widely used is non-notable is strangely peculiar.—J. M. (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-wikilinked Asus v1/v2[edit]

I unlinked Asus v1 and v2, seeing as how the links pointed to the 'ASUSTeK Computer Incorporated' page, and I couldn't find any other 'Asus' with a cursory search.
The IP for revision 275971777 [1], 63.135.50.87, is mine. Thanks. Washii (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software using libavcodec[edit]

I don't think there is any point in listing dozens of software projects using libavcodec, as it is probably used by hundreds, if not thousands of projects. Furthermore, the presentation in terms of a long list of red links is utterly pointless. Any thoughts on removing the bulk of these? — Richie 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Libav/FFmpeg pages[edit]

The contents in the libavcodec page should be merged into the FFmpeg page. I already merged the content into the Libav page (since the Libav was brand new anyway). Multimedia in general is much more than just codecs (which you can see with the addition of other libraries such as libavfilter, libavresample/libswresample, and libavdevice) and this page is outdated anyway. Amejia1 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After Libav’s fork, it is even more appropriate, not less, for this page to exist, to clear up the confusion between which packages provide libavcodec. In the rare event only FFmpeg or only Libav support some notable feature without the other one supporting it for a significant length of time, it would then be appropriate to list that feature on the FFmpeg or Libav page directly and not here; otherwise shared features are more appropriate here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A blurb about libavcodec being provided by FFmpeg and Libav would suffice to clear up that kind of confusion. This page is outdated. Furthermore, this page makes it seem like multimedia apps solely use libavcodec when they would actually make use of libavformat and libavutil as well for certain. Where are the pages for these other libraries? Where is the discussion on the history of libavcodec? How does libavcodec fit with respect to the other libraries in FFmpeg/Libav? How would libavcodec be used to write your own multimedia app? Could we explain the development process of getting another codec implemented in libavcodec? This page has become just an outdated listing of what codecs are implemented and what projects use libavcodec. Amejia1 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good argument… for removing the outdated information in this article. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is outdated about this article?--Regression Tester (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libavcodec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]