On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 02:50:45PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Aleksey Vasenev <margtu-f...@ya.ru> wrote: > > We keep only half source frames. > > Source: time_base 1/10 and ptss 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > > Before change: time_base 1/5 and ptss 0 1 2 3 4 > > After change: time_base 1/10 and ptss 0 2 4 6 8 > > Yes, that's probably wrong, interlaced frames are generated using two > consecutive frames from a different time base, generating a completely > new one.
If you prefer i can revert this? But i think "wrong" is a bad term to describe it. It is more exact mathematically as it better preserves the input timestamps. Its wrongness comes from it just not matching interlaced standard timebases like used in PAL/NTSC. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony. -- Heraclitus
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
