libx265 a lot slower

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

libx265 a lot slower

Cecil Westerhof-3
I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
several years ago, so I am not sure.)
I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
normal, or a quirk at my side?
For the moment I stay with libx264.

--
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald


Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
> normal, or a quirk at my side?
> For the moment I stay with libx264

what do you expect?

H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
from heaven
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Cecil Westerhof-3
Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
>> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
>> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
>> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
>> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
>> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
>> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
>> normal, or a quirk at my side?
>> For the moment I stay with libx264
>
> what do you expect?

I did not expect anything, just noticed something.


> H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
> 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
> from heaven

For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking
something.


By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
'strange' videos?

--
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Carl Zwanzig

Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
ignore them.

On 8/16/2020 10:02 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:

> For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
> are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking
> something.

Probably not; for a one-use file, I'd take whichever one is easier to deal
with (which might mean quickest to encode). And depending on the source
material, and well, everything in the chain, you might use another codec
anyway, there's nothing mystical/magical about x264 (and a few decidedly
unfriendly things- ref "moov atom location").

> By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
> would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
> taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
> 'strange' videos?

"Never generalize."

I'd take any size estimate as a guess since your content and encoding
parameters are probably different. If my own tests of x265 showed 30%
smaller but 2x the encode time, I wouldn't bother.

Later,

z!

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald
In reply to this post by Cecil Westerhof-3


Am 16.08.20 um 19:02 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:

> Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
>>> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
>>> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
>>> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
>>> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
>>> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
>>> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
>>> normal, or a quirk at my side?
>>> For the moment I stay with libx264
>>
>> what do you expect?
>
> I did not expect anything, just noticed something.
>
>> H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
>> 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
>> from heaven
>
> For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
> are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking
> something.
>
> By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
> would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
> taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
> 'strange' videos?

people sell the typical much higher costs for encoding combined with
untypical best-case results - nothing new the past 20 years no matter
what topic
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Carl Eugen Hoyos-2
In reply to this post by Cecil Westerhof-3


> Am 16.08.2020 um 19:02 schrieb Cecil Westerhof <[hidden email]>:
>
> By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
> would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
> taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
> 'strange' videos?

You completely misunderstand what „half as big“ means: It is easy to get an even smaller file with FFmpeg‘s mpeg1 video encoder.

Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Carl Eugen Hoyos-2
In reply to this post by Carl Zwanzig


> Am 16.08.2020 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig <[hidden email]>:
>
> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers

There are several reasons why you should be extremely careful with such comments, please consider this a little warning.

Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald
In reply to this post by Carl Zwanzig


Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
> ignore them.

there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
comes with a logical cost

there is also nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that
every "look here how good xyz is" is based on best-case and never
reflects the reality

> On 8/16/2020 10:02 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>
>> For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
>> are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking
>> something.
>
> Probably not; for a one-use file, I'd take whichever one is easier to
> deal with (which might mean quickest to encode). And depending on the
> source material, and well, everything in the chain, you might use
> another codec anyway, there's nothing mystical/magical about x264 (and a
> few decidedly unfriendly things- ref "moov atom location").
>
>> By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
>> would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
>> taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
>> 'strange' videos?
>
> "Never generalize."
>
> I'd take any size estimate as a guess since your content and encoding
> parameters are probably different. If my own tests of x265 showed 30%
> smaller but 2x the encode time, I wouldn't bother.

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Mark Filipak
On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
>> ignore them.
>
> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
> comes with a logical cost

That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265 will take longer to encode.
If you have information to the contrary, you could cite it instead of being insulting.

> there is also nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that
> every "look here how good xyz is" is based on best-case and never
> reflects the reality

That is also illogical.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald


Am 17.08.20 um 02:07 schrieb Mark Filipak:

> On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
>>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
>>> ignore them.
>>
>> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
>> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
>> comes with a logical cost
>
> That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265
> will take longer to encode. If you have information to the contrary, you
> could cite it instead of being insulting.

i can't teach you common sense
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Mark Filipak
On 08/17/2020 02:24 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:

> Am 17.08.20 um 02:07 schrieb Mark Filipak:
>> On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
>>>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
>>>> ignore them.
>>>
>>> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
>>> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
>>> comes with a logical cost
>>
>> That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265
>> will take longer to encode. If you have information to the contrary, you
>> could cite it instead of being insulting.
>
> i can't teach you common sense

Troll.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald


Am 17.08.20 um 08:30 schrieb Mark Filipak:

> On 08/17/2020 02:24 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 17.08.20 um 02:07 schrieb Mark Filipak:
>>> On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
>>>>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
>>>>> ignore them.
>>>>
>>>> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
>>>> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
>>>> comes with a logical cost
>>>
>>> That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265
>>> will take longer to encode. If you have information to the contrary, you
>>> could cite it instead of being insulting.
>>
>> i can't teach you common sense
>
> Troll

well, try to encode H264 or even *decode* it on hardware from20 years
ago where other video codecs existed

nobody right in his brain can expect a codec based on H264 with better
quality *and* lower filesize coming without any cost


_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

FFmpeg-users mailing list
In reply to this post by Reindl Harald
 For christ's sake.
People, be polite. Harald, you are incredibly impolite. This is a user list. It is reasonable for people to ask basic questions here. Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.
P
    On Monday, 17 August 2020, 07:24:33 BST, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 

Am 17.08.20 um 02:07 schrieb Mark Filipak:

> On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
>>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
>>> ignore them.
>>
>> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
>> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
>> comes with a logical cost
>
> That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265
> will take longer to encode. If you have information to the contrary, you
> could cite it instead of being insulting.

i can't teach you common sense
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".  
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Mick Finn
In reply to this post by Cecil Westerhof-3
H.265 produces larger savings for larger resolutions than h274 )4k and higher).
H265 requires much higher computation levels and works best when mapped to GPU.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 17, 2020, at 12:02 AM, Cecil Westerhof <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>>> Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
>>> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
>>> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
>>> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
>>> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
>>> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
>>> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
>>> normal, or a quirk at my side?
>>> For the moment I stay with libx264
>>
>> what do you expect?
>
> I did not expect anything, just noticed something.
>
>
>> H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
>> 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
>> from heaven
>
> For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
> are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking
> something.
>
>
> By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
> would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
> taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
> 'strange' videos?
>
> --
> Cecil Westerhof
> Senior Software Engineer
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald
In reply to this post by FFmpeg-users mailing list


Am 17.08.20 um 10:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
> Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.

you don't need to be an expert for common sense, thast's why it's called
that way neiter am i an expert for video codecs

it's simply logical that smaller files with the same or better quality
need more computing power and examples where it's possible are very rae
in the history

> Am 17.08.20 um 02:07 schrieb Mark Filipak:
>> On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
>>>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
>>>> ignore them.
>>>
>>> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
>>> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
>>> comes with a logical cost
>>
>> That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265
>> will take longer to encode. If you have information to the contrary, you
>> could cite it instead of being insulting.
>
> i can't teach you common sense

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Cecil Westerhof-3
Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 17.08.20 um 10:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
>> Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.
>
> you don't need to be an expert for common sense, thast's why it's called
> that way neiter am i an expert for video codecs

I was not offended myself, but I have seen myself (albeit not with
video compression) that changing things can save space and be faster.
;-)

By the way: I did not expect it to be faster. I would not have been
surprised if it was slower. But 2.5 to 3 times seemed a lot to me. But
it seems it is not.

--
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Eduardo Alarcón
In reply to this post by Reindl Harald
El lun., 17 ago. 2020 a las 7:19, Reindl Harald (<[hidden email]>)
escribió:

>
>
> Am 17.08.20 um 10:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
> > Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.
>
> you don't need to be an expert for common sense, thast's why it's called
> that way neiter am i an expert for video codecs
>
> It's common sense that common sense does not exist.
People are not born with intrinsic knowledge that is applicable to
everything.
Common sense comes from the experience and knowledge of an individual, so
it can be teached because you can explain and teach another why you reached
a certain conclusion based on what facts and experiences.
Common sense for you it's not common sense for another, and there are a lot
of other people that will think that you don't have any common sense.


it's simply logical that smaller files with the same or better quality

> need more computing power and examples where it's possible are very rae
> in the history
>
> > Am 17.08.20 um 02:07 schrieb Mark Filipak:
> >> On 08/16/2020 05:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>> Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
> >>>> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
> >>>> ignore them.
> >>>
> >>> there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
> >>> codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
> >>> comes with a logical cost
> >>
> >> That is illogical. There is no reason why one should expect that libx265
> >> will take longer to encode. If you have information to the contrary, you
> >> could cite it instead of being insulting.
> >
> > i can't teach you common sense
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald


Am 17.08.20 um 16:47 schrieb Eduardo Alarcón:

> El lun., 17 ago. 2020 a las 7:19, Reindl Harald (<[hidden email]>)
> escribió:
>
>> Am 17.08.20 um 10:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
>>> Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.
>>
>> you don't need to be an expert for common sense, thast's why it's called
>> that way neiter am i an expert for video codecs
>>
>> It's common sense that common sense does not exist

don't let appear something like it has written by who you respond to!

> People are not born with intrinsic knowledge that is applicable to
> everything.

the next one which confuses common sense with knowledge

i don't need knowledge about cars to guess that one needs more fuel when
he drives double as fast while put a big stone in the luggage space

i don't even need to own a car for that
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

FFmpeg-users mailing list
 The reason people are complaining is nothing to do with the logic of what you're saying.
It's because you're so incredibly impolite about it.
To put it succinctly, you are a very good example of what is wrong with open source software in general.
No, it is not okay to do this because you think it somehow produces technical rigour.
P


    On Monday, 17 August 2020, 16:12:37 BST, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:  
 
 

Am 17.08.20 um 16:47 schrieb Eduardo Alarcón:

> El lun., 17 ago. 2020 a las 7:19, Reindl Harald (<[hidden email]>)
> escribió:
>
>> Am 17.08.20 um 10:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
>>> Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.
>>
>> you don't need to be an expert for common sense, thast's why it's called
>> that way neiter am i an expert for video codecs
>>
>> It's common sense that common sense does not exist

don't let appear something like it has written by who you respond to!

> People are not born with intrinsic knowledge that is applicable to
> everything.

the next one which confuses common sense with knowledge

i don't need knowledge about cars to guess that one needs more fuel when
he drives double as fast while put a big stone in the luggage space

i don't even need to own a car for that
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".  
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald


Am 17.08.20 um 18:07 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
>  The reason people are complaining is nothing to do with the logic of what you're saying.
> It's because you're so incredibly impolite about it.

so what

aren't you the guy which wanted to modify his operating systems file
dialog from within a webmail? :-)

>     On Monday, 17 August 2020, 16:12:37 BST, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:  
>  
>  
>
> Am 17.08.20 um 16:47 schrieb Eduardo Alarcón:
>> El lun., 17 ago. 2020 a las 7:19, Reindl Harald (<[hidden email]>)
>> escribió:
>>
>>> Am 17.08.20 um 10:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user:
>>>> Your assumption that everyone is an expert is unreasonable.
>>>
>>> you don't need to be an expert for common sense, thast's why it's called
>>> that way neiter am i an expert for video codecs
>>>
>>> It's common sense that common sense does not exist
>
> don't let appear something like it has written by who you respond to!
>
>> People are not born with intrinsic knowledge that is applicable to
>> everything.
>
> the next one which confuses common sense with knowledge
>
> i don't need knowledge about cars to guess that one needs more fuel when
> he drives double as fast while put a big stone in the luggage space
>
> i don't even need to own a car for that
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".  
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
>

--

Reindl Harald
the lounge interactive design GmbH
A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17
CTO / CISO / Software-Development
m: +43 676 40 221 40
p: +43 1 595 3999 33
http://www.thelounge.net/

GPG-Public-Key:
https://arrakis-tls.thelounge.net/gpg/h.reindl_thelounge.net.pub.txt
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
12