Michael Koch <astroelectro...@t-online.de> writes: > Am 31.05.2022 um 18:43 schrieb Cecil Westerhof via ffmpeg-user: >> Michael Koch <astroelectro...@t-online.de> writes: >> >>> I have a short example in chapter 2.57 of my book: >>> http://www.astro-electronic.de/FFmpeg_Book.pdf >> Just to make sure I understand it, I should do something like: >> ffmpeg -ss %S1% -t %L1% -i %I1% \ >> -ss %S2% -t %L2% -i %I1% \ >> -ss %S3% -t %L3% -i %I1% \ >> -lavfi "concat=n=3:v=1:a=0" \ >> -an %OUT% >> >> But if I understand it well, this works on the iframes, would it not >> be better (but longer) to use: >> ffmpeg -i %I1% -ss %S1% -t %L1% \ >> -i %I1% -ss %S2% -t %L2% \ >> -i %I1% -ss %S3% -t %L3% \ >> -lavfi "concat=n=3:v=1:a=0" \ >> -an %OUT% > > I think that won't work. If you write the options after the input file, > then they are applied to the next input file, and the options in the > third line are applied to the output file. > The concat filter does also work with audio. I just didn't need audio in > my example.
But if you put them before the input file they are not precise, but work on the iframe level. This can give quit extensive differences. (I was bitten by that in the past.) Or is that not the case in this specific scenario? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
