[FFmpeg-devel] attribute_deprecated int avpicture_deinterlace ??

Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de
Sat Nov 30 18:54:52 CET 2013

On 30.11.2013, at 15:37, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Stefano Sabatini <stefasab at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On date Friday 2013-11-29 08:30:51 -0500, Don Moir encoded:
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefano Sabatini"
>>> <stefasab at gmail.com>
>>> To: "FFmpeg development discussions and patches" <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:09 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] attribute_deprecated int avpicture_deinterlace ??
>>>> On date Friday 2013-11-29 09:06:57 -0500, Don Moir encoded:
>>>>> deinterlacing is directly related to decoding in that you want a
>>>>> properly decoded image and not some effect.
>>>>> Looks like we are now pointed to avlibfilter and yadif. I have no
>>>>> use for avlibfilter so I should link it so I can deinterlace ?
>>>>> avlibfilter is just excess baggage from my viewpoint.
>>>>> Hate to bring this up late but seems silly or am I the only one that
>>>>> thinks that? Hope I am misunderstanding something.
>>>> Possibly: we could extract the yadif code and move it somehow to the
>>>> library (libavfilter public low-level API or something, so you don't
>>>> need to build a filtergraph to apply it). It might be non trivial.
>>> Would be good if avpicture_deinterlace was improved possibly using
>>> yadif and left where it is. Other than that, I would probably roll
>>> my own rather than use avfilter if avpicture_deinterlace goes away.
>> What's exactly your problem with libavfilter (please no trolling)? The
>> main problem seems that you are not willing to configure a filtergraph
>> for that, so the alternative I proposed is a low level deinterlacing
>> API, based on yadif which could be used without filters.
> A simple filtergraph just for deinterlacing is so trivial that I
> wouldn't let this argument count for anything.

I don't know. If it's more than 5 lines of code (and I suspect it's a lot more) it might be useful to have a function that just passes things through one single filter...
Though it would probably still need a create and destroy function in addition, so I don't know if such a simplified API is worth it...

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list