On Oct 21, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. +1 Tim _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
