On 12/10/17, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (2017-12-10):
>> For increased tempo it have much better quality.
>> For decreased tempo is have similar quality.
>> Also it have more options and is more configurable
>> and have increased range of tempo scaling.
> Is there any benefit in atempo, then?
> If not, then this filter should replace atempo, but keeping the name,
> and as much as possible the options, for maximum convenience for users.

That is very extreme step, if you insist on such step.

Could you please change your statement?
ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to