[FFmpeg-devel] lavfi: request_frame() return value.

Nicolas George nicolas.george at normalesup.org
Sun Mar 17 16:06:22 CET 2013

Le septidi 27 ventôse, an CCXXI, Clement Boesch a écrit :
> I'd say 2 & 3 (if->while and auto-insert), because I like the idea of
> being able to simplify the filters themselves

I believe you confused the solutions: 2 is "change the semantic of return 0"
(this is what your patch implements) and 3 is "add a loop in
ff_request_frame", they are mutually exclusive.

I believe I like 3 slightly better, but I have no strong argument.

> auto-inserted segmentation filter is a more expressive way of showing
> what's happening than having it in the core like now (where it's not easy
> to get a clue what's going on).

Michael's arguments for auto-inserting the segmentation filter are
convincing, but as he said, it is completely orthogonal to the problem at
hand. And it will not happen immediately.

> Apart from this, I need a fix for min/max samples ASAP so I can unblock
> the current work with metadata in filters :)

You can always implement 0 (looping inside ebur128, see request_frame for
af_atempo) immediately.


  Nicolas George
-------------- 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/20130317/2a9fc629/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list