[FFmpeg-user] ffprobe documentation seems mixed up with ffmpeg docs

Stefano Sabatini stefasab at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 12:48:09 CEST 2012

On date Monday 2012-08-13 00:10:23 +0200, Peter B. encoded:
> On 08/09/2012 09:26 AM, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > Anyway I don't think removing those includes from ffprobe.texi would
> > be acceptable for the above mentioned reasons.
> I understand.
> What about pointing to the parts of ffmpeg's docs instead of including them?

> I might be talking too superficial here, but if I am not the only one
> who finds it rather confusing to have the ffmpeg syntax mentioned
> without any additional note within the ffprobe docs, what about
> mentioning your above listed explanations shortly and then point to
> ffmpeg's doc where necessary. Then it'd be clear why these sections
> appear in ffprobe.
> If so many parts are shared between ffmpeg and ffprobe (which is
> understandable), it might be a bad idea to copy text-parts (=fork) the
> ffprobe docs just in order to adapt the text there so it better suits
> ffprobe's syntax and use cases.
> There are ffmpeg conversions shown as examples, which is something that
> is absolutely undoable using ffprobe.
> Examples: AVOptions [1], Codec AVOptions [2] or Syntax:Color [3].
> Ideas?

Some parts should be moved to ffmpeg.texi (for example Codec options only
apply to ffmpeg, same for stream specifiers).

Regarding the color syntax, that's part of a generic file
(doc/syntax.texi) which contains the syntax for several things in the
library/tools, so I'd rather keep that (and although far-fetched you
can empoy the color syntax in ffprobe, e.g. when probing ffprobe -f
lavfi "color=c=red").
ffmpeg-user random tip #22
See the capture of a video4linux device:
ffplay -s 640x480 -f video4linux /dev/video0 

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list