Paul B Mahol (12019-05-09): > I got into possession of code that is better than atempo for very > small scale factors (0.5). > > So I gonna write new filter which would also be able to change both > tempo and pitch at same time.
My requirements stay the same: If it does the same thing, then it belongs in atempo, not in a separate new filter. This is a generic principle: if they do the same thing, from the users' perspective of the result and not from the developer perspective of the implementation, then they should have the same interface, and the users should get the best choice by default as much as possible. This is not an isolated problem, and this is not a whim from me: we had a discussion during the last VDD about the proliferation of scaling filters, and there was agreement that it was not a good direction for users. We also have a dozen de-interlacing filters and another dozen of de-noising filters. We cannot go back in time to prevent that proliferation, but we can prevent it from spreading farther, do resamplers and other kind of filters. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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".