On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 09:47:47PM +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2017-10-21 21:43 GMT+02:00 Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me>: > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 09:37:06PM +0200, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> 2017-10-21 18:40 GMT+02:00 Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me>: > >> > >> > Aside from these nitpicks, I'm still concerned about how it's going > >> > to conflict with GIF encoding where the transparent color is actually > >> > used as a mean of not updating pixels from previous frames. > >> > >> But is this really related to this patch? > > > > Maybe not, but we need to keep that in mind and not make a > > hasty decision wrt how we handle the transparency, because > > it might makes future related development much harder. > > Given that this is a libavfilter-only patch and we can reproduce > the issue without using libavfilter, I am not completely > convinced, but this is of course your decision. >
Yes it should be fine, I just want to be sure that using palettegen/paletteuse will not create input streams that the limited GIF encoder does not handle well because it doesn't make a difference between "transparency flavours". If paletteuse starts inserting transparent colors that are not meant to be used for the frame-diff system it could become a problem. In any case, I'll probably apply the patch at the next version, I'm just not exactly comfortable with that part. -- Clément B.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
