On Sun, 05. Apr 02:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos > > > > > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as interlaced, > > > > >> other frames as progressive. > > > > > > > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. > > > > > > > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen > > > > > > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect them. > > > > > > Clearly, thank you! > > > > > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined > > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield > > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. > > > > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first > > Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch attached. >
FYI Currently patchwork does some filtering on the subject line to understand when an attachment in a reply-to message is a new version of a patch. If you would like patchwork to treat the attachment as a new version, then pls remove the "Re: " in the subject line of the reply message. This will create a new entry for the patch. Otherwise the reply is treated as part of the existing thread. Thanks, -- Andriy _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".