On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:41:12AM +0100, Carl-Eugen Hoyos wrote:
diff --git a/libavcodec/r210enc.c b/libavcodec/r210enc.c
index d61cd75..4cbebd7 100644
--- a/libavcodec/r210enc.c
+++ b/libavcodec/r210enc.c
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int encode_frame(AVCodecContext *avctx, AVPacket
*pkt,
Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de writes:
-uint16_t b = *src++ 4;
+uint16_t b = *src++ 6;
if (avctx-codec_id == AV_CODEC_ID_R210)
-pixel = (r 20) | (g 10) | b 2;
+pixel = (r 20) | (g 10) | b;
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 05:02:39PM +, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de writes:
-uint16_t b = *src++ 4;
+uint16_t b = *src++ 6;
if (avctx-codec_id == AV_CODEC_ID_R210)
-pixel = (r 20) | (g
Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de writes:
Though as noted in the commit message I am not sure that
for better compatibility the extra bits shouldn't be 1
instead...
I am not against, but I wonder what you want to be compatible
with? Or to say it differently: If something reads
On 28.12.2014, at 00:58, Carl Eugen Hoyos ceho...@ag.or.at wrote:
Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de writes:
Though as noted in the commit message I am not sure that
for better compatibility the extra bits shouldn't be 1
instead...
I am not against, but I wonder what you want
Hi!
Attached patch makes the output of r10k more predictable.
Please comment, Carl Eugendiff --git a/libavcodec/r210enc.c b/libavcodec/r210enc.c
index d61cd75..4cbebd7 100644
--- a/libavcodec/r210enc.c
+++ b/libavcodec/r210enc.c
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int encode_frame(AVCodecContext *avctx,
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 12:41:12AM +0100, Carl-Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Hi!
Attached patch makes the output of r10k more predictable.
Please comment, Carl Eugen
this is probably ok
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Let us carefully observe those
