On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:49:22 +0100 Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote:
> Am 21.03.16 um 11:41 schrieb wm4: > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:34:11 +0100 > > Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote: > > > >> Am 21.03.16 um 08:23 schrieb wm4: > >>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:49:18 +0100 > >>> Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> trying to handle software fallback more consistently for videotoolbox and > >>>> probably other hardware accelerations. > >>>> > >>>> Addresses ticket #5352 where software fallback is demanded which has been > >>>> removed on purpose before. With this patch the user can configure the > >>>> desired > >>>> behaviour. > >>>> > >>>> -Thilo > >>> > >>> Please explain how a hwaccel that uses no hardware decoding makes any > >>> sense at all. > >> > >> Checking compliance, comparing output/performance, work around a possible > >> bug in > >> an alternative decoder... of course it is no alternative if you need/want > >> the > >> benefits of hardware decoding but there are use cases that come to mind. > >> And maybe you don't have an alternative decoder at hand... > > > > But it's integrated as hwaccel, so most of these arguments don't make > > too much sense to me. Please don't touch the hwaccel thing, and wait > > until there's a separate videotolbox decoder. > > Indeed, if this decoder is actually coming it voids the need for this change. > > Have I missed it on -devel already? No, but it will exist. AFAIK Rodger Combs wanted to look into this. (If nobody else does, I'll do it.) _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
