On 09/24/2011 02:28 AM, Jean First wrote:
> On Sat Sep 24 2011 01:45:44 GMT+0200 (CEST), Justin Ruggles wrote:
>> On 09/23/2011 07:22 PM, Jean First wrote:
>>> - if(s->invert){
>>> - uint8_t *src;
>>> - int j;
>>> -
>>> - src = s->picture.data[0];
>>> - for(j = 0; j< s->height; j++){
>>> - for(i = 0; i< s->picture.linesize[0]; i++)
>>> - src[i] = 255 - src[i];
>>> - src += s->picture.linesize[0];
>>> + if (s->invert){
>>> + dst = s->picture.data[0];
>>> + for (i = 0; i< s->height; i++) {
>>> + for (j = 0; j< s->picture.linesize[0]; j++)
>>> + dst[j] = 255 - dst[j];
>>> + dst += s->picture.linesize[0];
>>
>> has this been tested with 16-bit white-is-zero grayscale? the 255 seems
>> wrong. or is this just clean-up?
>
> This is just cleanup.
> The Invert flag is called "Photometric Interpolation" in the spec - and
> for RGB Images this has to be set to 2.
> But I think for GREY16 this would matter. Also the PAL8 is not covered
> by this.
That's fine. We just require that cosmetic/cleanup changes be done
separately from functional changes. So a patch for just this part would
be ok by itself.
Thanks,
Justin
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
