On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 01:02:43PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 26/11/11 12:25, Kostya Shishkov wrote: > >On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:04:10AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: > >>On 26/11/11 06:31, Mashiat Sarker Shakkhar wrote: > >>>From: Michael Niedermayer<[email protected]> > >>> > >>>Fixes: vc1 file from Ticket606 > >>>Fixes: vc1+vc1+++artifacts*.vc1 > >>>Fixes: mpeg+vc1+++salxxos.evo > >> > >>fcm; ///< 0->Progressive, 2->Frame-Interlace, 3->Field-Interlace > >> > >>So Use the same scantable for Progressive and Field-Interlace ? > > > >For us FCM is 0, 1 and 2. And scantables for interlaced mode should be used > >(it seems from the standard unless I got it wrong) for both FCM = 1 or 2. > > libavcodec/dxva2_vc1.c seems to use it > > pp->bSecondField = v->interlace && v->fcm != 0x03 && > !s->first_field;
it's incorrect then in vc1.c v->fcm = decode012(gb); it's a bit silly to address it by binary code anyway > >Though the old approach was wrong too - there are enough files with > >interlaced > >mode = 1 and FCM=0 (HD-DVD featured that, for example). > > uhm so the patch isn't right completely... yes _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
