On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 06:39:38PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote: > Hi, > > note: I'm using "step" throughout the patch because of the step > function and what the causal part most often looks like. I have no > idea for another less confusing wording. > > 2014-07-28 23:15 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at>: > > maybe i misunderstand but the "progress[1] > y" check looks odd, > > shouldnt progress[0] be updated to a larger value even if > > progress[1] > y > > ? > > Let's look at the following schema, that maybe should be added to the > documentation: > ___ p[0] > p[1] ___| > p[2] > > p(rogress)[0] and p[1] are the ordinates of the step. p[2] is the abscissa.
another way to vissualize the same thing is to consider
1) 0..p[2] 2) 0.......w
.....| .........
p[1]_____| p[0]_________
that is two convex shapes, first a rectangle from (0,0) to (p[2], p[1])
and second the old "all above line"
and consider them finished&available to be all points that are in
either.
I had based my suggestions of what how to update based on this
vissualization
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Avoid a single point of failure, be that a person or equipment.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
