On 26/11/11 16:07, Justin Ruggles wrote:
On 11/24/2011 03:34 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
On 24/11/11 00:49, Justin Ruggles wrote:
ist->next_pts += ((int64_t)AV_TIME_BASE * decoded_frame->nb_samples) /
+ avctx->sample_rate;
ist->next_pts += ((int64_t)AV_TIME_BASE * decoded_frame->nb_samples) /
+ avctx->sample_rate;
Is duration less reliable?
The original packet duration can be less accurate if it's based on
what's in the input stream. Or depending on what libavformat does, it
can be a made-up value that's just plain wrong.
Ok, put a @warning or a FIXME about it please ^^
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
