On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:54:50PM -0800, Aman Gupta wrote:
> From: Aman Gupta <a...@tmm1.net>
>
> ---
> libavcodec/mpegvideo_parser.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavcodec/mpegvideo_parser.c b/libavcodec/mpegvideo_parser.c
> index de70cd5632..be240b6890 100644
> --- a/libavcodec/mpegvideo_parser.c
> +++ b/libavcodec/mpegvideo_parser.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static void
> mpegvideo_extract_headers(AVCodecParserContext *s,
> }
> }
>
> - if (!pc->progressive_sequence) {
> + if (!pc->progressive_sequence && !progressive_frame)
> {
Iam not against this if it results in more correct interlaced detection
in practice
But the spec uses progressive_sequence alone to determine the output
ISO/IEC 13818-2: 1995 (E) / Recommendation ITU-T H.262 (1995 E)
If progressive_sequence is 0 the period between two successive fields at
the output of the decoding
process is half of the reciprocal of the frame_rate. See Figure 7-20.
So the commit message seems wrong or inprecisse
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good.
Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart
then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
