On date Wednesday 2010-06-09 03:00:05 -0700, Baptiste Coudurier encoded: > On 5/11/10 3:39 PM, Baptiste Coudurier wrote: > >On 05/11/2010 03:18 PM, Stefano Sabatini wrote: > >>On date Wednesday 2010-05-12 00:10:28 +0200, Vitor Sessak encoded: > >>>Víctor Paesa wrote: > >>>>Hi > >>>> > >>>>On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 21:46, Vitor Sessak wrote: > >>>>>Baptiste Coudurier wrote: > >>>>>>Guys, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>What do you think about it ? > >>>>>Looks a good idea to me, unless someone comes up with an even > >>>>>better name. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Well, strictly speaking, not only files are supported. > >>> > >>>But for me "file" is still the least misleading. For example, in > >>>"ffmpeg -h": > >>> > >>>>-i filename input file name > >>> > >>>We already call [file|URL|video4windows device number] a "file"... > >> > >>Exactly. What we're really taking in input is a lavf > >>resource/source/stream. > >> > >>Maybe vsrc_stream, but I continue to prefer "lavf" as it is using the > >>lavf syntax/capabilities. > >> > > > >I think users don't really know about lavf, it won't be obvious for them > >at all... > > > > So, victor, stefano ? Do we agree on a name or ? Michael what do you think ?
I'm for (in this order): * vsrc_lavf (and explain in details where this name comes from, and its capabilities) * vsrc_movie -> same as currently, yet better than vsrc_file which is misleading IMHO. > Can you guys please review vsrc_movie.c ? I'll try to do it this night, please start by posting the patch to ffmpeg-devel. > It would be nice to have overlay in svn. +1. Regards. _______________________________________________ FFmpeg-soc mailing list FFmpeg-soc@mplayerhq.hu https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-soc
