On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > > I dont think the patch will apply cleanly there, also > If correct timestamps are the main reason for vf_interlace, then why > was tinterlace not fixed instead of taking a subset of its features > and creating a new filter out of that ?
Because there was not a single mode of tinterlace that actually interlaced properly. You could have named it 'vf_funwithlines' and it would have been more accurate, while vf_interlace did the right thing since the start. Also I like smaller filters that do just one thing but they do it right. It'd be nice that fixes were propagated to both regardless of their source anyway. >> This effectively limits interlacing to two framerates. What about pure >> 30i? > > added Ok this effectively limits interlacing to three framerates. I am quite sure there are other weird framerates that are not listed and are valid interlaced formats unfortunately. >> What about some future (or past) framerate we didn't think of? >> Listing all possible framerate combinations is simply not >> maintainable. > > i very much hope that the number of interlaced frame rates will be > finite, small and not growing. > In case that turns out not to materialize that way some other > heuristic can be used instead of a table. I very much hope people will stop using interlacing ^^ >> If you reeeeeeally want interlaced vfr why don't just add a filter >> option like "keep_timebase" or something? Imho, it would be enough to >> revert the broken patches. > > i can revert it for vf_interlace if you like? As you prefer. Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel