On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 08:16, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote:
> Quoting Kieran Kunhya (2020-07-27 20:15:17) > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 11:09, Anton Khirnov <an...@khirnov.net> wrote: > > > > > Quoting Kieran Kunhya (2020-07-26 01:51:22) > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I notice that some encoders adjust the PTS with initial_padding and > some > > > > don't. > > > > Is this intentional and should we decide that all encoders should do > > > this? > > > > > > Which ones don't? > > > > > > > A few here: > > > https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/search?p=1&q=initial_padding&unscoped_q=initial_padding > > Sounds a lot like "find them yourself". Presumably you already did that, > so might as well list at least an example. > There's nothing to find. It's easy to see from that page which ones do a pts subtraction and which ones don't. For example libmp3lame.c and libopusenc.c do not. > > > I don't think this is a matter of opinion really - if encoder adds > > > padding and doesn't adjust the timestamps then the output timestamps > are > > > just plain wrong. > > > > > > > Well some containers have a flag for it. Right now if you encoded with > > libopus into mkv or ts you get the PTS offset as well as the syntax > element > > written to the bitstream. > > Then I'd say if a container has a special field for padding then it > should also adjust timestamps. > This makes no sense. Either the container writes the special padding field and doesn't adjust timestamps. Or it assumes the timestamps are already adjusted and writes a zero padding field. Writing both is clearly wrong. Kieran _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".