On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:14:22 +0200, Vittorio Giovara <[email protected]> wrote: > --- > Now typo-free and with more precise message. > Vittorio > > libavfilter/vf_fieldorder.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/libavfilter/vf_fieldorder.c b/libavfilter/vf_fieldorder.c > index 19b07b1..09b78d6 100644 > --- a/libavfilter/vf_fieldorder.c > +++ b/libavfilter/vf_fieldorder.c > @@ -101,8 +101,13 @@ static int filter_frame(AVFilterLink *inlink, AVFrame > *frame) > uint8_t *data; > > if (!frame->interlaced_frame || > - frame->top_field_first == s->dst_tff) > + frame->top_field_first == s->dst_tff) { > + av_log(ctx, AV_LOG_WARNING, > + "Skipping %s.\n", > + frame->interlaced_frame ? > + "frame with same field order" : "progressive frame"); > return ff_filter_frame(outlink, frame); > + } >
I don't think this should be a warning. It's perfectly normal for a user to insert this to ensure some specific field order on output, regardless of what is on input. So verbose/debug would be more appropriate imo. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
