On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Vittorio Giovara <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
sound reasonable to me (as far as I understand it). _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
