[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Clarifying the use of the scale filter interlace option

Michael Niedermayer michaelni at gmx.at
Sat Mar 31 14:48:13 CEST 2012

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:54:49PM +0100, Mark Himsley wrote:
> On 29/03/2012 20:33, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 08:49:38AM +0100, Tim Nicholson wrote:
> >>
> >> Also unlike other cases -1 (auto) is not the default.
> > 
> > this could be changed if it works better overall
> I made this point on 25/07/2011, with a patch. It was rejected because
> the progressive videos used in fate tests were always flagged as
> progressive in DV codecs so PSNR tests failed horribly.

From: Mark Himsley <mark at mdsh.com>
I am very surprised by that low PSNR, but I honestly haven't looked at
the code to work out why it's so. Studying the output file, the
horizontal and vertical resolution is half of what I expected.

So for the moment I withdraw this patch.


That was the last mail in the thread, so not sure, have you found the
reason for the low horizontal resolution that you observed ?
Or what is the status of this from your side? as far as i can see you
have withdrawn the patch, it hasnt been rejected.

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is
On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem).
On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number
of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20120331/e991bb51/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list