[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Frame accurate seeking
Wed Dec 30 17:25:03 CET 2009
Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 12/30/09 4:07 PM, Karl Blomster wrote:
>> Artur Bodera wrote:
>>>> Also, feature requests do not belong on this list, and even for a
>>>> feature request this lacks an exact description of _what_ you want.
>>> Sure, unless I provide a solution, which I did:
>> FFmpegSource (http://code.google.com/p/ffmpegsource) does something
>> similar. That is, provides a simplified API that gives you
>> frame-accurate decoding but not much else. Some people find that quite
>> useful, but from what I read about what you actually want to do, it
>> won't help you at all.
>>> The use case is described here:
>>> I'm looking for a way to split a stream into parts without decoding
>>> it to
>>> rawvideo or transcoding 2 times. I thought it would be feasible using
>>> gop/fps calculations, but it seems that the time seeking is a bit
>>> and -vframes does not help either when you need 2 matching chunks (the
>>> second one needs to start where the first one ended, frame-wise, and
>>> you can
>>> not seek by frames = dead in the water).
>> If you can accept splitting only at I(DR)-frames, mkvmerge can do this
>> for you. You can always demux/remux back to MP4 later. :V
> I personnally find _very rude_ to advertise for different software (2 in
> this mail) on another software's mailing list. IMHO there are way more
> appropriate places for advertising.
How exactly was I "advertising" anything, and why exactly would it be rude to
speak of software that uses ffmpeg? The thread starter talked about software
that uses ffmpeg to do something ffmpeg currently doesn't do, with the aim of
trying to integrate similar functionality into ffmpeg itself, and I provided him
with another example of similar software. Neither software can possibly be
considered a replacement for ffmpeg (both just let you use ffmpeg in a different
way), so why are you getting offended by this alleged "advertising"? It's not
like we're trying to "steal" your "market share"; it's actually more like we're
trying to make ffmpeg better. Both examples are open source too, so what exactly
is the problem?
More information about the ffmpeg-devel