On 18 January 2015 at 12:22, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 02:52:59AM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >> >> > L'octidi 28 nivôse, an CCXXIII, Kieran Kunhya a écrit : >> > > Oops I misunderstood, you mean the software must comply with the users >> > wishes. >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> > > Anyway my argument is that BT601 should be the default for the these >> > > resolutions. >> > >> > If you want, but that must happen immediately when the contents enters into >> > FFmpeg's data structure, not at a random point in the processing chain. >> > >> > >> Without arguing for or against BT.601 behaviour... >> >> nvenc should behave the same as libx264, or any other video encoder, if >> this patch makes it do that, then it should be applied. > > Yes, and AFAICS an earlier mail from philip indicates this is the case > " > Stream #0:0: Video: rawvideo (RGB[24] / 0x18424752), rgb24, 720x576 > [SAR 64:45 DAR 16:9], 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc > > With libx264, I get the same SAR and DAR out. > > With nvenc, I get: > > sample_aspect_ratio=16:11 > display_aspect_ratio=20:11 > " > > In above example the user asks for a NON BT.601 format 720x576 at > SAR 64:45 and a DAR related to 720x576 NOT 702 or 704x576 of 16:9 > yet nvenc gives her something else
Here's the point where I give up and start my own fork where things are done properly. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel