-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create a frame extraction appliance #64
Comments
This is going to ultimately use ffmpeg -- something like the commane in this superuser question. |
This tool splits up an ffmpeg png stream: https://github.com/eugeneware/png-split-stream |
slifty
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 29, 2021
The video-image-extractor appliance will take a video stream and split it into individual pngs. Issue #64
slifty
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 29, 2021
We're going to use ffmpeg to convert a video stream into a stream of png data. This package will take that stream of pngs and split them into independent chunks of data. Issue #64
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Task
Description
The appliance should take STREAM.CONTAINER payloads and spit out frames as png files.
The appliance should allow the user to specify the number of frames per second.
Question
We need to decide whether the resulting frames are (A) written to disk or (B) emitted directly as part of the
payload.data
or (C) some flavor of both.This question has deeper implications, since this will set a precedent for all kinds of appliances that generate self contained outputs. For instance, will the SRT appliance (#58) write to a file? What about an appliance that generates gifs from these extracted frames? Etc.
Similarly, what about appliances that, for instance, burn captions onto a keyframe? Or highlight something about that keyframe? Should those appliances write directly to disk?
To be clear: we do ultimately want the ability to write to a disk. The question is simply whether that should be:
countertop.on('data', (payload) => write image payloads to disk
)ImageRecorderAppliance
which can be added to a topology and instructed to record certain types of output from certain stations in certain ways)I'm leaning into the idea that, at least for now, appliances should never write to the file system (unless they need to internally).
This means that TVK implementations would be responsible for writing files however / wherever they would like, which gives them full control over things like naming, location, etc.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: