2017-06-15 20:00 GMT+02:00 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org>: > Le quintidi 25 prairial, an CCXXV, Thomas Mundt a écrit : > > Patch attached. This fixes ticket #2674. I inserted a FIXME message as a > > reminder. > > Please comment. > > I am sorry to say I do not like it. The timestamp computation code in > vf_fps is already quite complex, and this patch is making it more > complex, introducing frames_in_proc which should not be needed just to > fix the last timestamp, and obviously the EOF handling duplicates the > filter_frame() logic. > > Hmm, before rewriting and sending this patch I asked if it would have a chance to be pushed just to fix the ticket which is open for a very long time. Your answer gave me the assumtion that you´re okay with it. I thought your only concern was the not allowed use of pkt_duration.
> I think the way forward for this filter is to rewrite the core logic > using the activate() design. It should be much simpler since the > framework already handles a FIFO. If you are interested in it, you > probably will need to rebase push this series: > > https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-April/209678.html > > and use the attached patch. > > Well, my problem is that I´m not deep enough in ffmpeg programming to understand the interrelations of timestamp handling and unfortunately I don´t have the time to figure it out. Working with patches that I don´t fully understand doesn´t make any sense. My intention was a fix within the filter to close the ticket. Just to bridge the time until a proper fix is made. Regards, Thomas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel