Francesco Romani wrote:
This looks the old YV12/I420 confusion... Quoting the wikipedia page
above:
***
The YV12 format is essentially the same as YUV420p, but it has the U and
V data reversed: the Y values are followed by the V values, with the U
values last. As long as care is taken to extract U and V values from the
proper locations, both YUV420p and YV12 can be processed using the same
algorithm.
***
transcode 1.0.x handles internally YV12 (...mostly), while transcode
1.1.x and beyond is I420. (being I420 == YUV420)
But why did they put the U data in the video_buf_V array, and the V data
in the video_buf_U array?? It doesn't make sense to me. (I'm probably
just missing something, I am well aware of my own ignorance on video
formats.)
We have definitively too much number instead, looks like it's time
for a refactoring! :)
something like
-J extsub=0:0:0:1:0:color=255,255,255:style=4:bright=0
I was thinking something like that too, but I don't know how to do it
yet. I'm new to transcode, remember :-D
If anyone is interested, let me know, and let me know where to send the
filter_extsub.c file so you can take a look at it!
diffs (as attahments) against lastest revision are always preferred :)
Okay, but I will have to get the latest revision downloaded first, to
make sure I get it right; the version I am using is from the 1.0 branch,
although I checked it out on August 3rd. It's late though, and I'm
tired, so I'll do that later, but as soon as I do I'll upload the patch.
--
James G. Flewelling,
Registered Linux User #327359
Linux From Scratch User #15607
