As of git: ea97859c8c218b83ab747a7eabcb88ca446f6751 line 1533 in
libavcodec/adpcm.c contains:
static const enum AVSampleFormat sample_fmts_s16p[] = { AV_SAMPLE_FMT_S16,
I believe it should contain:
static const enum AVSampleFormat sample_fmts_s16p[] = { AV_SAMPLE_FMT_S16P,
Note the trailing P
I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail
configuration impeded my efforts to use ‘—send-email’.
This commit did pass 'make fate’ though the use of these changes requires
decklink hardware so I did not add any new fate tests. By default the new
optional behavior is
Thank you for trying it out, Dave.
1) Can you please tell me more about how you tested?
2) Did you run a capture command with ffmpeg after patching?
3) What was the target output you we using?
Thanks,
Jon
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
Hi Kieran,
To answer your question, this change basically takes the first valid TC as a
string and sticks it in the video’s avstream metadata dictionary where other
muxers and encoders look. It does not make an independent timecode track/stream
with samples per frame. That is why I called the
Attached are the two patches to address your feedback, Marton. Please advise.
Thanks,
Jon
> On May 25, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>
>> I apologize in advance for the forma
> On May 25, 2018, at 8:32 AM, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>
>> I apologize in advance for the formatting of this message. My mail
>> configuration impeded my efforts to use ‘—send-email’.
>
AM, Kieran O Leary <kieran.o.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Morley <jmor...@pixsystem.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Kieran,
>>
>> To answer your question, this change basically takes the first valid TC as a
Also please include the frame rate coming from the ultrastudio. I suspect
there is a mismatch in the works.
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:36 PM Dave Rice <d...@dericed.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On May 25, 2018, at 17:15, Jonathan Morley <jmor...@pixsystem.com>
> wrote:
> >
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:36 PM Dave Rice <d...@dericed.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On May 25, 2018, at 17:15, Jonathan Morley <jmor...@pixsystem.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for trying it out, Dave.
> >
> > 1) Can you please tell me more about how
Attaching again from another mail client.
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>
> Attached are the two patches to address your feedback, Marton. Please
>> advise.
>>
>&
Thank you. I will add that and get you a new patch for review.
> On May 30, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>
>> Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify which
>> context
Please take a look at my latest patches.
NOTE: I no longer have the hardware to test this work!
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>
> Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify w
patch, but it might be a minute before I get to it.
Thank you again for taking a look.
I guess we got really lucky in our use case.
Thanks,
Jon
> On May 31, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Dave Rice wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>> On May 31, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Morley > <mail
wrote:
>
>
>> On May 31, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>>
>> Please take a look at my latest patches.
>>
>> NOTE: I no longer have the hardware to test this work!
>
> I tested these patches with an Ultrastudio 3D.
>
> I find that in some
.
As for the other error message my plan is to demote that to a debug.
Thanks,
Jon
> On May 31, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Dave Rice wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>> On May 31, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Morley > <mailto:jmor...@pixsystem.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Wel
Thank you Marton, That makes sense to me, but can you please clarify which
context is the most appropriate to use?
Thanks,
Jon
> On May 29, 2018, at 1:41 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2018, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>
>> Attaching again from another
to make any
assumptions or changes either.
Please keep me posted. Meanwhile I will look into what could be causing all the
error chatter.
Thanks,
Jon
> On May 31, 2018, at 7:59 AM, Dave Rice wrote:
>
>
>> On May 31, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>>
>&g
16, 2018, at 12:23 PM, Devin Heitmueller
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 16, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Jonathan Morley wrote:
>>
>> That is really interesting feedback guys. I have been thinking about things
>> mostly in a MOV independent timecode track (or tracks) kind of wa
That is really interesting feedback guys. I have been thinking about things
mostly in a MOV independent timecode track (or tracks) kind of way, but I know
OMF, MXF, AAF, etc handle it more analogously to packet/frame side data.
Usually ffmpeg has some kind of superset of functionality for
Hi Marton et al,
I am revisiting this now that I have access to the BlackMagic DeckLink Duo
again. I see what made it into master and had a few questions.
1) Can you please explain more about storing the timecodes as side packet data
in each video packet? Basically is there some convention
20 matches
Mail list logo
