An aside but related?

FFmpeg has complex syntax because it’s dealing with the _complexity of video_. I agree with everyone about knowing (and helping create or contribute to) our tools.

Today I largely forget about the _legacy_ of video, the technical challenges, and how critical it was to get it right.

There are an incredible number of output formats and considerations for _current_ screens (desktop, tablet, mobile, tv, etc…). Then we have a whole other world on the creation side for capture, edit, live broadcast…

On legacy formats it used to be so complex with standards, requirements, and evolving formats. Today, we don’t even think about why we have 29.97fps around? Interlacing?

We have a mix of so many incredible (and sometimes frustrating) codecs, needs and final outputs, so it’s really amazing the power we have with a tool like FFmpeg… It’s daunting but really well thought out.

So just a big thanks to the FFmpeg team for all their incredible work over the years…

no 2nd thoughts about it, we are only making ffmpeg more accessible and embeddable.

> FFmpeg has complex syntax because it’s dealing with the _complexity of video_.

It's dealing with 3D data (more if you count audio or other tracks) and multi-dimensional transforms from a command line.

>FFmpeg has complex syntax because it’s dealing with the _complexity of video_

It's complexity paired with bad design, making the situation worse than it could be.

what legacy formats? what are you even talking about?