Cecil Westerhof via ffmpeg-user <ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org> writes: > 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?
That is not the case anymore. I am using (bash on Debian): ffmpeg -y \ -ss ${videoStart} -to ${cutStart} -i ${inputFile} \ -ss ${cutEnd} -to ${videoEnd} -i ${inputFile} \ -vcodec libx264 \ -crf 26 \ -acodec libmp3lame -qscale:a 9 \ -preset veryfast \ -lavfi "concat=n=2:v=1:a=1" \ -an ${outputFile} -- 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".