> From: "Paul B Mahol"
> To: "FFmpeg development discussions and patches"
> Cc: "Damien Riegel" , "Patrick Keroulas"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:47:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v1 2/3] avcodec/bitpacked: add i
On 10 April 2018 at 22:21, Patrick Keroulas <
patrick.kerou...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
> From: Damien Riegel
>
> This codec is already capable of depacking some combinations of pixel
> formats and depth as defined in the RFC4175. The only difference between
> progressive and interlace is tha
On 10 April 2018 at 22:21, Patrick Keroulas <
patrick.kerou...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
> From: Damien Riegel
>
> This codec is already capable of depacking some combinations of pixel
> formats and depth as defined in the RFC4175. The only difference between
> progressive and interlace is tha
On 4/10/18, Patrick Keroulas wrote:
> From: Damien Riegel
>
> This codec is already capable of depacking some combinations of pixel
> formats and depth as defined in the RFC4175. The only difference between
> progressive and interlace is that either a packet will contain the whole
> frame, or onl
From: Damien Riegel
This codec is already capable of depacking some combinations of pixel
formats and depth as defined in the RFC4175. The only difference between
progressive and interlace is that either a packet will contain the whole
frame, or only a field of the frame.
As FFmpeg is not capabl
