On 8/19/20, Jim DeLaHunt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2020-08-19 10:53, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> On 8/19/20, Jim DeLaHunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2020-08-19 07:34, Paul B Mahol wrote: >>>> You are deeply confused about our filters. >>>> Any filter can change pixel formats to one that they accepts thus gbrp >>>> is picked instead of packed rgb, this is already documented >>>> implicitly. >>> Wow, "documented implicitly". This is such a classic FFmpeg project >>> statement. The role of documentation is to explain, explicitly, at a >>> suitable level of detail. What does "documented implicitly" even mean? >>> >>> I think this thread points out is that FFmpeg documentation is >>> inadequate. It is hard to prove a negative, but I suspect that the term >>> "pixel format" is not actually defined in the FFmpeg documentation. I >>> suspect that the statement, "Any filter can change pixel formats" is not >>> stated either. Certainly the maskedmerge filter documentation[1] doesn't >>> mention pixel formats at all, much less say what pixel formats the >>> filter sets for its output. >>> >>> …And yet "You are deeply confused about our filters". In other words, the >>> documentation has failed to explain to you what FFmpeg does, the project >>> has failed to write or welcome improved documentation, you do not >>> understand how FFmpeg works — and somehow this is your fault. >> http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#toc-Filtergraph-syntax-1 >> >> mention it explicitly: >> >> Libavfilter will automatically insert scale filters where format >> conversion is required. It is possible to specify swscale flags for >> those automatically inserted scalers by prepending sws_flags=flags; to >> the filtergraph description. > > > This continues to be a great example of the FFmpeg project's approach to > documentation. > > 1. A sentence about a library adding functional processing steps ("scale > filters") in buried in a section entitled "syntax", amid paragraphs > about syntax. > > 2. the "scale filters" name alludes to changing pixel counts, and the > linked-to filter documentation[2] talks about "(resize) the input video" > and about "the input image format" (without defining that term); it does > not have a parameter for pixel formats or document the pixel formats it > uses or sets or changes. > > 3. this reference to "scale filters" is supposed to be responsive to a > thread about pixel formats. > > 4. no acknowledgement that the documentation might actually be less than > perfect. Is it so hard to concede, "you have a point, the docs could be > better here"? > > [1] http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-all.html#maskedmerge > [2] http://ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#scale
Well than sentence needs to be completely rewritten since we have audio support too. > > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
