Am 31.05.2022 um 20:27 schrieb Cecil Westerhof via ffmpeg-user:
Michael Koch <astroelectro...@t-online.de> writes:
Am 31.05.2022 um 18:43 schrieb Cecil Westerhof via ffmpeg-user:
Michael Koch <astroelectro...@t-online.de> writes:
I have a short example in chapter 2.57 of my book:
http://www.astro-electronic.de/FFmpeg_Book.pdf
Just to make sure I understand it, I should do something like:
ffmpeg -ss %S1% -t %L1% -i %I1% \
-ss %S2% -t %L2% -i %I1% \
-ss %S3% -t %L3% -i %I1% \
-lavfi "concat=n=3:v=1:a=0" \
-an %OUT%
But if I understand it well, this works on the iframes, would it not
be better (but longer) to use:
ffmpeg -i %I1% -ss %S1% -t %L1% \
-i %I1% -ss %S2% -t %L2% \
-i %I1% -ss %S3% -t %L3% \
-lavfi "concat=n=3:v=1:a=0" \
-an %OUT%
I think that won't work. If you write the options after the input file,
then they are applied to the next input file, and the options in the
third line are applied to the output file.
The concat filter does also work with audio. I just didn't need audio in
my example.
But if you put them before the input file they are not precise, but
work on the iframe level. This can give quit extensive differences. (I
was bitten by that in the past.) Or is that not the case in this
specific scenario?
Then you could use the trim filter.
Michael
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
