On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:46 AM Maksym Veremeyenko <ve...@m1stereo.tv> wrote:
> On 02.06.2015 22:36, Dan Dennedy wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:05 AM Brian Matherly <c...@brianmatherly.com > > <mailto:c...@brianmatherly.com>> wrote: > > > > You make a good point. The same result can be achieved by applying > > the affine transition. Instead of putting the rotation > > responsibility on the pango producer, why not allow the watermark > > filter to use the affine transition? > > > > > > Umm, no. melt +hello.txt -attach affine transition.fix_rotate_x=45 > > > > filter_watermark is to transition_composite as filter_affine is to > > transition_affine. I do not want to extend watermark to use affine when > > filter_affine is so similar: > > melt +hello.txt -attach affine:noise: transition.fix_rotate_x=45 > > > > Neither will I accept adding any more features to the already unwieldy > > transition_composite. One can use tracks and transitions - possibly > > encapsulating it within a tractor as a virtual clip - either inline or > > as distinct MLT XML. Also, one can work to improve affine or > > core/filter_transition. > > ...assuming I have decided to reject the idea of rotation within pango. > > Let me hear Maksym's reaction/argument. > > my arguments are: > > - *quality*: basically glyphs rotated at vector level and only then > rasterized subpixelly > > - *CPU usage*: it does not perform any floating point calculation and > image scaling. > > it is basically pango renderer feature > True, it is using pango functions, and those are good enough reasons. I will accept it, but please change property name to rotate unless it supports rotating along other axes. If it does, then rotate_x. When are you going to start pushing to a git repo and send pull requests?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Mlt-devel mailing list Mlt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlt-devel
