[FFmpeg-user] Error after conversion back to WebM ( under IE 11 )
gliese849b at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 22:32:28 CEST 2014
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote:
> RDP <gliese849b <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> > RDP <gliese849b <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> >> Viewing with Internet Explorer 11, under WInodws 8.1,
>> >> the first two files play back tickety-boo, but the
>> >> conversion back to .webm fails to be recognised
>> >> successfully.
> Please always post command lines etc. (everything except
> sample files) on the mailing list, do not use external
> resources, they may disappear.
Understood ( though in this case I'd happily leave them behind
for posterity )
> The failing command line in your case is the command
> line that produces a webm file that does not play.
> This is what I tried to explain with "in your case
> the command line that produces the webm file".
Understood ( we just saw this from a slightly different aspect )
>> If they had, then you would had got the 'offending'
>> output quoted, here.
> The command line is needed no matter if an error is
> shown or not.
>> I assume nothing. I expect nothing. I'm not
>> 'everybody'. I don't use IE by default.
> You are one (of several persons) who - afaict -
> assume that IE plays webm files (it does not).
There was no intentional ass-out-of-u-and-me from
either side ;o) However, with all due respect, maybe
a little pedanty creeping in here? ;o) IE does 'play'
webm *with* the necessary assistance. Otherwise,
I agree with you, no, by default, IE does not play
webm ( yet ).
> From your question, it would have been difficult
> to understand that you are using Google's webm
> plugin (which for some reason requires the mkv
> version to be set to 2 while FFmpeg sets it to
> 4 since it uses features only present in version
As it happens a search provided a similar scenario,
and knowing allows patching/fixing.
>> Should I infer from your message that you consider
>> ffmpeg not to be 'at fault', just because the
>> command does not throw an error during conversion?
> No, my message (above) meant that we are aware of
> the problem.
In which case, no more needs to be said on the matter.
Cheers for your messages and assistance. Rest assured,
should I post again, I will border on compendiousness!
More information about the ffmpeg-user