On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Vittorio Giovara <[email protected]> wrote: > > Technically frames are interlaced, but they should not be treated as > such because content is progressive, so it's quite difficult to > signal. I'd be tempted to mark them as progressive for simplicity, but > that wouldn't help applications. > > Maybe a new field could be introduced (like the one you propose) which > is *not* bitmask-compatible with AV_FRAME_INTERLACED; I'm not sure > it's worth/necessary to also keep the field information of the current > frame (tff/bff).
Actually, upon further study on IRC, what lavc decoders provide is complete frames, not fields, and psf frames should be treated as progressive. So I think the best solution for this is to add a new value, like AV_FRAME_PROGRESSIVE_PSF which is bitmask-compatible with AV_FRAME_PROGRESSIVE and convert the various == checks in & checks. However right now no lavc decoder provides this additional information, and I'd avoid adding unused values to the API. So I'll just change the checks for forward compatibility and add the flag if/when a patch implementing that is complete. Would something like that be okay? Vittorio _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
