[FFmpeg-devel] release status
Mon Mar 2 21:46:40 CET 2009
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:34:02PM +0000, Robert Swain wrote:
> 2009/3/2 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 03:36:44PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:32:48AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 07:10:59PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> > > > [...]
> >> > >
> >> > > It seems we have two bad regresssions: timestamps
> >> >
> >> > which issue on roundup do i have to fix?
> >> The timestamp issue is the following:
> >> https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-user/2009-March/019303.html
> > thats not an issue on our bugtracker
> > theres no sample file to reproduce
> > and its not latest svn
> I had some back and forth with this user. When they updated to current
> svn the issue was resolved, even if tbr, tbn, tbc and the differing
> frame rate messages are confusing.
> tbc is the time base in AVCodecContext, tbn is the time base in
> AVStream and tbr is r_frame_rate as returned from
> But what do each of these timebases mean?
see the doxy and if something is unclear, clear questions and or patch
are welcome (its better to improve doxy than repeatly explain here ...)
> do videos have multiple time bases?
Because the people who wrote the spec are shizophrenic
> One would think they only have one
> time base that is sufficient to represent all the time stamps for all
> of the frames.
That would implicate that all people in the standard comittees agreed
approximately, in an ideal world yes a single timebase would do per
stream at least ...
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Thouse who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel