On 5/18/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:19:43PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> On 5/12/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> > On 5/12/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> >> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:00:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>> >>> Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
>> >>>
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 07:19:43PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 5/12/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > On 5/12/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:00:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> >>> Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
> >>> > Yeah, you are right, what I had in mind was
On 5/17/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
>> Says who? You are last person to be asked about this.
>
> Another ad-hominem attack.
I really stopped counting, how many times you feel "attacked".
>
>> I already rejected such idea.
>
> No, since you did not give any argument.
Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
> Says who? You are last person to be asked about this.
Another ad-hominem attack.
> I already rejected such idea.
No, since you did not give any argument.
I will not reply again if you continue your rudeness, your ad-hominem
attacks or just your lack of arguments.
On 5/17/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
>> If you or anyone does not propose some reasonable alternative solution
>> in due time, I gonna apply this patch.
>
> As already said: a single filter named atempo with compatibility
> options, or it is rejected.
Says who? You are
Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
> If you or anyone does not propose some reasonable alternative solution
> in due time, I gonna apply this patch.
As already said: a single filter named atempo with compatibility
options, or it is rejected.
And see with Michael about lswr.
--
Nicolas George
On 5/17/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 5/17/19, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
>>> Because lack of testers, I will apply this patch as is.
>>
>> Absolutely not. The consensus was to have a single filter, and even
>> possibly make it part of lswr. This is what is currently
On 5/17/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
>> Because lack of testers, I will apply this patch as is.
>
> Absolutely not. The consensus was to have a single filter, and even
> possibly make it part of lswr. This is what is currently discussed.
You are proposing even more
Paul B Mahol (12019-05-17):
> Because lack of testers, I will apply this patch as is.
Absolutely not. The consensus was to have a single filter, and even
possibly make it part of lswr. This is what is currently discussed.
--
Nicolas George
___
On 5/15/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 5/12/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> On 5/12/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:00:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
> Yeah, you are right, what I had in mind was this:
>
> apitch ===
On 5/12/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 5/12/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:00:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
>>> > Yeah, you are right, what I had in mind was this:
>>> >
>>> > apitch === asetrate,aresample,atempo
>>>
>>> Exactly.
On 5/12/19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:00:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
>> > Yeah, you are right, what I had in mind was this:
>> >
>> > apitch === asetrate,aresample,atempo
>>
>> Exactly. And reciprocally, atempo =
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:00:51PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
> > Yeah, you are right, what I had in mind was this:
> >
> > apitch === asetrate,aresample,atempo
>
> Exactly. And reciprocally, atempo = apitch+asetrate+aresample.
>
> Furthermore, since it works
Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
> Yeah, you are right, what I had in mind was this:
>
> apitch === asetrate,aresample,atempo
Exactly. And reciprocally, atempo = apitch+asetrate+aresample.
Furthermore, since it works with the spectrum, the filter that does the
hard work can probably easily output
On Sun, 12 May 2019, Nicolas George wrote:
Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
Why would you want to do pitch scaling and tempo scaling in a single filter?
Because that is the same thing.
Pitch scaling is a combo of asetrate and aresample as far as I understand.
You are mistaken: if you do
On 5/12/19, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2019, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol
>> ---
>>
>> This filter can dynamically change both tempo and pitch of audio.
>> Also scale range is bigger, from 0.01 to 100.
>
> Why would you want to do pitch scaling and tempo
Marton Balint (12019-05-12):
> Why would you want to do pitch scaling and tempo scaling in a single filter?
Because that is the same thing.
> Pitch scaling is a combo of asetrate and aresample as far as I understand.
You are mistaken: if you do that, you change the pitch and the tempo the
same
On Sun, 12 May 2019, Paul B Mahol wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol
---
This filter can dynamically change both tempo and pitch of audio.
Also scale range is bigger, from 0.01 to 100.
Why would you want to do pitch scaling and tempo scaling in a single
filter? Pitch scaling is a combo
Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol
---
This filter can dynamically change both tempo and pitch of audio.
Also scale range is bigger, from 0.01 to 100.
Fixed silly out of phase bug for multichannel audio.
---
libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
libavfilter/af_apitch.c | 776
19 matches
Mail list logo
