Vittorio Giovara <[email protected]> writes: >> On 13/05/2011 23:00, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Vittorio Giovara >>> <[email protected]> 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 > > 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.
Please explain how limiting to 8 lines could ever make any sense whatsoever. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
