So just to reflect the discussion on the chan, it is fine to reject this
patch as it breaks FATE.
However I still believe that the behaviour introduced in my patch would
be much more consistent for different videos: I mean why is it fine for
a video to crop 24 lines because it is interlaced, but you can crop max
14 in case of progressive? Imho it is better and more consistent to
always crop max 8 lines independent of resolution and framerate.
Anyways I'll try to provide a more test-compliant patch soon (or at
worst, file some bug reports) :)
Best,
Vittorio
On 13/05/2011 23:00, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Vittorio Giovara
<vittorio.giov...@sisveltech.com> wrote:
weekly ping :)
as I explained in the first email this patch is not doing the right thing as
the "right thing"(tm) would be to actually crop the resulting frame to the
dimensions specified in the cropping rectangle (tested on the JM); however
this patch takes a saner approach for the current handling in which the
"unusual" cropping values are always ignored and don't modify the final
resolution.
So this breaks fate-h264-interlace-crop, and not for the better.
Before the patch, the values are properly used and the bottom of the
image is cropped off. After the patch, the bottom looks like crap. I
don't think that's right.
Ronald
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
