On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 02:48:31PM +0000, Kevin Wheatley wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 01:48:55PM +0000, Kevin Wheatley wrote: > >> Here is the kind of thing that this looks like... This is definitely > >> NOT a patch :-) > > > > i dont understand this patch > > there are at least two of us. > > > please explain why you use vos_data > > it can be the first packet and you seem to implement that case > > but it is not always the first packet and you seem to add alot of > > code to handle this. But if the data is in the dnxhd packets > > using that always and not vos_data seems much easier > > what am i missing ? > > probably nothing, I've only tried to find a small change to the code, > and to localise the effect to the function so as to minimise the > effect of the change - I really don't have a full enough grasp of the > code base to do otherwise.
theres some code that memcpies extradata into vos_data and that is skiped if TAG_IS_AVCI(trk->tag), try to also skip this for DNxHD [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel