This parameter can be used to inform the allocation code about how much
downsizing might occur, and can be used to optimize how to allocate the
packet
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
The rationale is that coded_frame was only used to communicate key_frame,
pict_type and quality to the caller, as well as a few other random fields,
in a non predictable, let alone consistent way.
There was agreement that there was no use case for coded_frame, as it is
a full-sized AVFrame container used for just 2-3 int-sized properties,
which shouldn't even belong into the AVCodecContext in the first place.
The appropriate AVPacket flag can be used instead of key_frame, while
quality is exported with the new AVPacketSideData quality factor.
There is no replacement for the other fields as they were unreliable,
mishandled or just not used at all.
Signed-off-by: Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
Allocating coded_frame is what most encoders do anyway, so it makes
sense to always allocate and free it in a single place. Moreover a lot
of encoders freed the frame with av_freep() instead of the correct API
av_frame_free().
This bring uniformity to encoder behaviour and prevents applications
from erroneusly accessing this field when not allocated. Additionally
this helps isolating encoders that export information with coded_frame,
and heavily simplifies its deprecation.
Signed-off-by: Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
Newer versions of the nvenc hardware support The High 444 Predictive profile
of H.264, and can also do lossless encoding under this profile if desired.
This change introduces support for the profile, and exposes the appropriate
presets for requesting lossless encoding.
I tested lossless by generating a baseline sample with testsrc converted
to raw yuv444p, then encoded the sample with nvenc, then did a framemd5
comparision of both the raw video and the nvenc encode. The framemd5
reports were identical.
Signed-off-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org>
Signed-off-by: Timo Rothenpieler <timo@rothenpieler.org>
This allows us to offer the same codec name that libav uses. We don't have
a special way to do aliases, so it's all a bit more verbose than you'd want
but such is life.
Signed-off-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org>
For the sake of compatibility, and because pretty much everything else in the
codebase calls it HEVC.
Signed-off-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org>
It was not possible to set a profile before, the builtin profile
parameter does not seem to work propperly.
To be compatible with libx264, this overlays it with a local parameter
that expects a string, instead of an int, that takes the well known values
"high", "main" or "baseline".
Reviewed-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni@gmx.at>
Sufficiently new nvenc hardware (GM20x or later) has support for H.265
encoding. This works the same as the H.264 encoder except the
codec parameters are different.
Due to the fact that common codec parameters are not shareable, there's
quite a bit of conditional logic you'd wish we could do without, but
such is life.
Signed-off-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org>
Reviewed-by: Timo Rothenpieler <timo@rothenpieler.org>
For reasons we are not privy to, nvidia decided that the nvenc encoder
should apply aspect ratio compensation to 'DVD like' content, assuming that
the content is not bt.601 compliant, but needs to be bt.601 compliant. In
this context, that means that they make the following, questionable,
assumptions:
1) If the input dimensions are 720x480 or 720x576, assume the content has
an active area of 704x480 or 704x576.
2) Assume that whatever the input sample aspect ratio is, it does not account
for the difference between 'physical' and 'active' dimensions.
From, these assumptions, they then conclude that they can 'help', by adjusting
the sample aspect ratio by a factor of 45/44. And indeed, if you wanted to
display only the 704 wide active area with the same aspect ratio as the full
720 wide image - this would be the correct adjustment factor, but what if you
don't? And more importantly, what if you're used to ffmpeg not making this kind
of adjustment at encode time - because none of the other encoders do this!
And, what if you had already accounted for bt.601 and your input had the
correct attributes? Well, it's going to apply the compensation anyway!
So, if you take some content, and feed it through nvenc repeatedly, it
will keep scaling the aspect ratio every time, stretching your video out
more and more and more.
So, clearly, regardless of whether you want to apply bt.601 aspect ratio
adjustments or not, this is not the way to do it. With any other ffmpeg
encoder, you would do it as part of defining your input paramters or
do the adjustment at playback time, and there's no reason by nvenc
should be any different.
This change adds some logic to undo the compensation that nvenc would
otherwise do.
nvidia engineers have told us that they will work to make this
compensation mechanism optional in a future release of the nvenc
SDK. At that point, we can adapt accordingly.
Signed-off-by: Philip Langdale <philipl@overt.org>
Reviewed-by: Timo Rothenpieler <timo@rothenpieler.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni@gmx.at>
This should behave similar to x264 and other encoders, as it handles a
gop_size of 0 as Intra-Only, while it's still possible to control how
many B-Frames it inserts.
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michaelni@gmx.at>
