Any altivec experts? (H.264 codec)

@tommysammy

You forgot :
-new feanor ffmpeg integration
-support of YouTube 480p webm videos

@Tommy
Also add to bounty description _very_ necessary part: everything which will be added/implemented, should be bug free and without new bugs/quirks. If there will be any,they should be fixed for free and fast, as part of the bounty, and without "i will do it in my free time".

Also, add a note, that transferring of bounty will happens only after public beta-tests and everyone's agreement that everything what is bounty ask are implemented, and all works as expected.

Or, we can endup with unfinished stuff for which we all will pay.

@kas1e and zzd10h
100% agree

@kas1e and zzd10h
100% agree

@kas1e

May I assume that you are not a programmer? :P

This is completely impossible to achieve. Not nearly, but 100% impossible, there is no such thing as bug-free software. Period. The closest thing is to get most bugs fixed and a well-behaving application in most circumstances. But not 100% of them. And also bug fixing sometimes takes longer than actual development, esp in long-standing, hard-to-track bugs, so keep that in mind when asking for the bugs to be fixed for free.

Same for the bounty transfer, you're basically paying for someone's time not paying him to produce finished software (time-and-material contract vs complete project delivery). In the latter case, there is a reason many companies charge a hell of a lot more since they have to account for bug-fixing period, and even then it's easy to go off-schedule.

"Unfinished stuff for which we all pay": you just described pretty much all of proprietary software.

@feanor
Quote:

I am not programmer, but do program some stuff (on assembler, on C, on whatever else), as well as do ports, as well as understand what coding and programming is it (while still not programmer, as i don't like it). And i know, that someone may do almost bug-free code, while another, may bring half-working stuff, which will quirked and bugged in all the ways.


Quote:

Sure, just some software can be very buggy and unpossible to use, another ones can have bugs which users didn't notice from first run.

Quote:

Round.

Quote:

Sure, 95% will be enough. But not half-of-working with "sorry, i run out of time, will do it later when will have free time".

Quote:

What mean, there is no need for bounty then. As what we have now, "kind of works" already. For what then pay ? For some "i try to do something, but if it will be buggy so much that unpossible to use, sorry, its not my fault? "

Quote:

Then, let me say that: i will pay for someone time, who is skilled enough, and prove by other stuff that he skilled enough to avoid such remarks.

Quote:

No. Let me rephrase then: none of us want to pay for app which will crash on run, or, where implemented stuff will not works as extepcted.

Sure, some bugs will be everywhere all the time, but , paying for the stuff which will be unusable for example (i.e. some critical for usage bugs), are just wrong.

I mean, feel the difference. Not every coder are the same. Some of them do better code, some worse. And , in case with our current bounty idea for LiveForIt, we need to be sure that at least everything will works as users need from user pov. Ok bugs inside, but not hardcore ones, which make it unpossble to use normally introduced stuff.


I.e. , what about making a bounty for me, for 3000EUR, so i will improve mplayer ? Then i will bring all shit together, and when all will crash and burn, i will say : sorry, you pay for my time, bugs will be there always. Right ?:))

Sure, you as programmer want to protect the programmer's side. But i as one of mans who will pay for, want to protect my side, to be sure, that programmer will make all perfect, and not with excuses of all kinds, when time will come to grab money.

That for sure should all be discussed and put to the bounty. I.e. level of implemented details. Like "after finishing of the bounty , there is timeframe for 1 week, so users will check if it all works as in bounty described".

You just maybe late to party, but we have in past half-done bounties, so we need to be sure that all will be done as need it.

But to say truth, in case with Mplayer its all stinks. As we all works on it in the past (me included, btw), and afxgroup and joerg and fab and itix spend with amiga port a lot o time. I myself explain some things to LiveforIt in another threads where point out how all structured in our version of mplayer and so on. Making bounties on top of it , dunno. Probably its too much.

@kas1e

Quote:

Does that include all the 701 bugs at FFMPEG?

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=n ... etime&report=1&order=type

There is 638 bugs on MPlayerHQ

https://trac.mplayerhq.hu/query?status ... e&desc=1&order=changetime

Because then I have already failed the bounty before we started. Then we are also taking many years of my life.

Sure I will try to make the code bug free as humanly possible, but I cannot solve every bug this is just not humanly impossible.

There are limits to what I can do, cannot do. If you want an impossible bounty, then you found the wrong developer to do it, I only do realistic bounty's.

@kas1e

In that case, and if there are specific bugs to solve, why not do a separate bounty per task/bug/feature? Easier to track that way and you can be sure that the payment will only take place when something is completed.

@LiveForIt

and regarding TommySammy and my proposition ?

@zzd10h

I'm willing to go as low as 1800 Euro for all the work, that way better then initial 2600 euro, its 31% discount, I can't go any lower sorry, because then it's not worth it for me.

I feel a little worried about the webm codec, sure, I can try to do my best, but that is all I can do. Finding an older working webm codec and requires possibly rewriting the codec so fit latest changes, compile and testing; it can easily amount to a lot of work. It is not easy to put a price tag on it, because it might just be that latest FFMPEG codecs work, or might not, I will not know this before I compile it into mplayer.

I do not have currently working Linux PPC setup here, so cannot test it before stating work on it.

@LiveForIt
no you can^t fix all bugs, that is not the goal of this bounty.
The goal is:

Issue 26: Implementing menus in mplayer I think that take around one week so
Issue 27: Drag and Drop
Issue 33: Install script
Issue 34: Adding Screenshotdir and EXTPATTERN
Issue 36: AmiUpdate support
-new feanor ffmpeg integration
-support of YouTube 480p webm videos


Come on,let us make a fixed price.
1200 Euro for all without taxes and i will create a bounty at bountysource.com
We have to collect:
1200 Euro
+10% bountysource fee
+1,9% + 0,35 Euro per transaction

1343,15 Euro

Live rates at 2015.04.16 05:40:00 CEST
1.343,15 EUR = 1.438,25 USD
Since there are always fluctuations, i would collect 1.450 USD

Certainly it must be open source

@tommysammy

1400 Euro with out webm codec work.(We don't even know if that’s needed)
+10% bountysource fee
+1,9% + 0,35 Euro per transaction
~ 1569,26

If we can get 70% to donate, we have 1500 Euro.
so this should be a realistic sum.

this is 17 days work for me, A typical month has 20 workdays. this is a 46% discount from me.

I don't think you get any professional for this sum.

@tommysammy

You should add also that important one:

Issue 38: Redefine screen titles
Issue 50: OSD doesn't work in P96_pip video output
Issue 51: White stripes with the P96_pip driver
Issue 53: Scaling support in cgx_wpa driver (for fullscreen)

Also other 3 minor bugfixes:

Issue 47: Liverorit's MPlayer - unable to save video frame to a file
Issue 49: MPlayer 6.4 crash when saving frames as PNG (probably same as #47)
Issue 52: Version command was not updated for MPlayer 6.4

@kas1e

Issues #50 and #51 are already done in your version, can you send your patch to LiveForIt ?

@LiveForIt
it is ok for me , i will create a bounty in the next few days

@all

If I can say one think, add to the bounty(if possible due mplayer code modification over time, I dunno...), plz add to the bounty that the mplayer version have to be as fast as afxgroup's one that was still the faster one here on my G4 Pegasos2 and that was the one I use if I need to play videos...for sure I'm not interested to donate in a bounty that dont give me any speed improvemet(maybe only the altivec related but to know until its tested) in mplayer...

@TommySammy
Thank you to manage this bounty again.

Could you, please, post the bounty text BEFORE to create it ?

@LiveForIt

What about the integration of the PIP driver from Joerg ?
https://code.google.com/p/mplayer-amigaos/source/detail?r=68

According to our benchmarks it was the fast video driver around, even faster than the p96_pip (for older amigas/gfx)

@tommysammy

Quote:

Issue 26, 27, half 34 already in MPlayer-GUI. If you want GUI-functionality, use MPlayer-GUI.

@samo79

Quote:

50,51: How/who could test p96_pip?
53: Too slow. Use composition or p96_pip.

47,49: Of course it should NEVER crash. Better to disable a feature if it can't be fixed.

@Deniil

Quote:

No they are not the same menus, they have further functionalities.
for example the Load file, Cycle OSD, Play, Pause, Mute etc

Regarding the drag&drop the original version of Andrea support it by default (in p96_pip) without the need of an external GUI, of course it support both method, so in end you can drop files in MPlayerGUI or even drag a video directly in the video window (very usefull in case you have the MplayerGUI iconified or not visible)

(all that code are already availible into the LiveForIt repository so certain it couldn't be a huge job)

Quote:

Any one can test them, i mean any OS4 user with a R100/R200 card (Old AmigaOne, Pegasos 2, Sam440 etc)

@samo79

you have to ask Liveforit if we can add it to the bounty for the same amount