Yeah, you can give an LLM queries like “make this smaller with libx265 and add the hvc1 tag” or “concatenate these two videos” and it usually crushes it. They have a similar level of mastery over imagemagick, too!
Yeah, LLMs have honestly made ffmpeg usable for me, for the first time. The difficulty in constructing commands is not really ffmpeg's fault—it's just an artifact of the power of the tool and the difficulties in shoehorning that power into flags for a single CLI tool. It's just not the ideal human interface to access ffmpeg's functionality. But keeping it CLI makes it much more useful as part of a larger and often automated workflow.
Another option is to use a non-cli LLM and ask it to produce a script (bash/ps1) that uses ffmpeg to do X, Y, and Z to your video files. If using a chat LLM it will often provide suggestions or ask questions to improve your processing as well. I do this often and the results are quite good.
fwiw, `tar xzf foobar.tgz` = "_x_tract _z_e _f_iles!" has been burned into my brain. It's "extract the files" spoken in a Dr. Strangelove German accent
Better still, I recently discovered `dtrx` (https://github.com/dtrx-py/dtrx) and it's great if you have the ability to install it on the host. It calls the right commands and also always extracts into a subdir, so no more tar-bombs.
If you want to create a tar, I'm sorry but you're on your own.
I used tar/unzip for decades I think, before moving to 7z which handles all formats I throw at it, and have the same switch for when you want to decompress into a specific directory, instead of having to remember which one of tar and unzip uses -d, and which one uses -C.
"also always extracts into a subdir" sounds like a nice feature though, thanks for sharing another alternative!
For anyone curious, unless you are running a 'tar' binary from the stone ages, just skip the gunzip and cat invocations. Replace .gz with .xz or other well known file ending for different compression.
Examples:
tar -cf archive.tar.gz foo bar # Create archive.tar.gz from files foo and bar.
tar -tvf archive.tar.gz # List all files in archive.tar.gz verbosely.
tar -xf archive.tar.gz # Extract all files from archive.tar.gz
-l, --check-links
(c and r modes only) Issue a warning message unless all links to each file are archived.
And you don't need to uncompress separately. tar will detect the correct compression algorithm and decompress on its own. No need for that gunzip intermediate step.
The problem is it's very non-obvious and thus is unnecessarily hard to learn. Yes, once you learn the incantations they will serve you forever. But sit a newbie down in front of a shell and ask them to extract a file, and they struggle because the interface is unnecessarily hard to learn.
I'd also include Regex in the list of dark arts incantations.
I'm ok with regex, but the ffmpeg manpage, it scares me...
Ffmpeg was designed to be unusable if it falls into enemy hands.
I am perfectly at home with regexp, but ffmpeg, magick, and jq are still on the list to master.
OT, but yours has to be the best username on this site. Props.
Culón is Spanish for big-bottomed, for anyone else wondering.
with gemini-cli and claude-cli you can now prompt while it prompts ffmpeg, and it does work.
Yeah, you can give an LLM queries like “make this smaller with libx265 and add the hvc1 tag” or “concatenate these two videos” and it usually crushes it. They have a similar level of mastery over imagemagick, too!
Yeah, LLMs have honestly made ffmpeg usable for me, for the first time. The difficulty in constructing commands is not really ffmpeg's fault—it's just an artifact of the power of the tool and the difficulties in shoehorning that power into flags for a single CLI tool. It's just not the ideal human interface to access ffmpeg's functionality. But keeping it CLI makes it much more useful as part of a larger and often automated workflow.
Just seeking a clarification on how this would be done:
One would use gemini-cli (or claude-cli),
- and give a natural language prompt to gemini (or claude) on what processing needs to be done,
- with the correct paths to FFmpeg and the media file,
- and g-cli (or c-cli) would take it from there.
Is this correct?
Another option is to use a non-cli LLM and ask it to produce a script (bash/ps1) that uses ffmpeg to do X, Y, and Z to your video files. If using a chat LLM it will often provide suggestions or ask questions to improve your processing as well. I do this often and the results are quite good.
Yes. It works amazingly well for ffmpeg.
1 reply →
Curious to see how quickly each LLM picks up the new codecs/options.
I use the Warp terminal and I can ask it to run —-help and it figures it out
the canonical (if that's the right word for a 2-year-old technique) solution is to paste the whole manual into the context before asking questions
1 reply →
nope, that would be handling tar balls
ffmpeg right after
Tough crowd.
fwiw, `tar xzf foobar.tgz` = "_x_tract _z_e _f_iles!" has been burned into my brain. It's "extract the files" spoken in a Dr. Strangelove German accent
Better still, I recently discovered `dtrx` (https://github.com/dtrx-py/dtrx) and it's great if you have the ability to install it on the host. It calls the right commands and also always extracts into a subdir, so no more tar-bombs.
If you want to create a tar, I'm sorry but you're on your own.
I used tar/unzip for decades I think, before moving to 7z which handles all formats I throw at it, and have the same switch for when you want to decompress into a specific directory, instead of having to remember which one of tar and unzip uses -d, and which one uses -C.
"also always extracts into a subdir" sounds like a nice feature though, thanks for sharing another alternative!
> tar xzf foobar.tgz
You don't need the z, as xf will detect which compression was used, if any.
Creating is no harder, just use c for create instead, and specify z for gzip compression:
Same with listing contents, with t for tell:
I have so much of tar memorized. cpio is super funky to me, though.
Personally I never understood the problem with tar balls.
The only options you ever need are tar -x, tar -c (x for extract and c for create). tar -l if you wanna list, l for list.
That's really it, -v for verbose just like every other tool if you wish.
Examples:
You never need anything else for the 99% case.
For anyone curious, unless you are running a 'tar' binary from the stone ages, just skip the gunzip and cat invocations. Replace .gz with .xz or other well known file ending for different compression.
3 replies →
> tar -l if you wanna list, l for list.
Surely you mean -t if you wanna list, t for lisT.
l is for check-Links.
And you don't need to uncompress separately. tar will detect the correct compression algorithm and decompress on its own. No need for that gunzip intermediate step.
2 replies →
Yeah I never really understood why people complain about tar; 99% of what you need from it is just `tar -xvf blah.tar.gz`.
8 replies →
Except it's tar -t to list, not -l
1 reply →
You can skip a step in your pipeline.
The problem is it's very non-obvious and thus is unnecessarily hard to learn. Yes, once you learn the incantations they will serve you forever. But sit a newbie down in front of a shell and ask them to extract a file, and they struggle because the interface is unnecessarily hard to learn.
3 replies →
it was just a reference to xkcd#1168
I wasn't expecting the downvotes for an xkcd reference
nope, it's using `find`.