Pros of FFmpeg

• Broader functionality: FFmpeg is a comprehensive multimedia framework for encoding, decoding, and manipulating various audio and video formats
• More extensive command-line interface: Offers greater flexibility for advanced users and scripting
• Larger community and ecosystem: More third-party tools and libraries built around FFmpeg

Cons of FFmpeg

• Steeper learning curve: Requires more technical knowledge to use effectively
• Less user-friendly for streaming: Lacks built-in GUI and streaming-specific features found in OBS Studio

Code Comparison

FFmpeg (command-line example):

ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 22 -c:a copy output.mp4

OBS Studio (C++ example):

obs_output_t *output = obs_output_create("rtmp_output", "my_output", nullptr, nullptr);
obs_output_update(output, settings);
obs_output_start(output);

While FFmpeg excels in versatility and command-line operations, OBS Studio provides a more streamlined experience for live streaming and recording with its GUI and purpose-built features. FFmpeg is better suited for complex media processing tasks, while OBS Studio is ideal for content creators focusing on live production.

Pros of OBS

• Historical significance as the original OBS project
• Simpler codebase for those familiar with earlier versions
• May be easier to understand for developers new to OBS

Cons of OBS

• No longer actively maintained or updated
• Lacks modern features and optimizations found in OBS Studio
• Limited platform support compared to OBS Studio

Code Comparison

OBS (legacy):

void OBS::StartStreaming()
{
    if (App->IsStreaming())
        return;

    App->StartStreaming();
}

OBS Studio:

void OBSBasic::StartStreaming()
{
    if (outputHandler->StreamingActive())
        return;

    SaveProjectNow();

    ui->streamButton->setEnabled(false);
    outputHandler->StartStreaming();
}

The OBS Studio code shows more advanced functionality, including saving the project and updating the UI. It also uses a dedicated output handler, indicating a more modular design.

OBS Studio has largely superseded the original OBS project, offering improved performance, cross-platform support, and a more extensive feature set. While the legacy OBS may still be of interest for historical or educational purposes, OBS Studio is the recommended choice for most users and developers.

Pros of DistroAV

• Focused on distributed audio/video processing
• Designed for scalability and cloud-native environments
• Modular architecture for easier customization

Cons of DistroAV

• Less mature project with fewer contributors
• Limited documentation and community support
• Narrower feature set compared to OBS Studio

Code Comparison

OBS Studio (C++):

obs_source_t *source = obs_get_source_by_name("Camera");
obs_source_release(source);

DistroAV (Go):

stream, err := distroav.NewStream("rtmp://example.com/live")
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Summary

OBS Studio is a well-established, feature-rich broadcasting software with extensive community support and plugins. It's primarily designed for local video mixing and streaming.

DistroAV, on the other hand, focuses on distributed audio/video processing, making it more suitable for cloud-based and scalable environments. However, it's a newer project with less maturity and a smaller community.

The choice between the two depends on specific use cases: OBS Studio for traditional broadcasting and streaming, DistroAV for distributed and cloud-native audio/video processing needs.