Hi Marvin, On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:19 AM Marvin Scholz <epirat07-at-gmail....@ffmpeg.org> wrote: > I think even if a frame is schedule "far" in the future, if I want them > all played out then it should probably still wait, no? As what is considered > "far" is a matter of interpretation…
That probably depends. If the clock gets screwed up and a frame is submitted with a PTS five hours into the future you don't want it to stall for five hours. The driver lets you control the number of buffers available (and has limits on such), but IIRC not explicitly on the timestamps submitted (which dictates when the frame gets played out). But yeah, "far" is a matter of interpretation. In practice you generally won't see frames queued more than a second in advance. I think we can agree on a reasonable threshold that prevents it getting stuck in a loop for potentially hours if the clocks were bad but doesn't cause issues in practice (e.g. 2 seconds?). > Also there should likely be an option to opt in to this new behavior? Agreed, this behavior should probably be configurable. I would argue though that the behavior provided by this patch should be the default. AFAIK, it wasn't an intentional decision to terminate before all buffers were output, and flushing pending data on close is the standard behavior for other muxers. On a personal note, I work with realtime decoding and thus the existing behavior is my preference (since I want it to terminate immediately). But I think my use case is far less common than people who simply want to play out their file based content to the Blackmagic device. Devin -- Devin Heitmueller, Senior Software Engineer LTN Global Communications o: +1 (301) 363-1001 w: https://ltnglobal.com e: devin.heitmuel...@ltnglobal.com _______________________________________________ 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".
