On 4/12/20, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/11/20, Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Am Sa., 11. Apr. 2020 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol >> >> <one...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >>> On 4/11/20, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 02:05 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 01:02 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> <ceffm...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 00:40 Uhr schrieb James Almer >> >>> >> > > <jamr...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On 4/3/2020 6:37 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> >> > > > > Am Fr., 3. Apr. 2020 um 23:19 Uhr schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos >> >>> >> > > > > <ceffm...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> Attached patch marks actually telecined frames as >> >>> >> > > > >> interlaced, >> >>> >> > > > >> other frames as progressive. >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > New patch with changes to fate attached. >> >>> >> > > > > >> >>> >> > > > > Please comment, Carl Eugen >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Those yadif tests look wrong. The patch shouldn't affect >> >>> >> > > > them. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Clearly, thank you! >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > New patch attached, it should now only change the telecined >> >>> >> > > frames and leave the other frames as they are, the setfield >> >>> >> > > filter can be used to force a progressive setting for them. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > New patch attached that also sets top_field_first >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Which had the effect that fate is correct again, new patch >> >>> >> attached. >> >>> > >> >>> > Patch applied. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> This was never approved by me. >> >> >> >> You reviewed it on irc and correctly pointed out the missing bits. >> > >> > Lies, I was against that idea from start. >> > >> >> >> >>> So revert it ASAP! >> >> >> >> What should be changed about it? >> > >> > Return of code as it was before this pointless change. >> > I see no good out of it. >> >> I gonna revert this ASAP! > > If you feel the patch is wrong, then you should present technical > arguments to that purpose. Otherwise, there was plenty time on the ML > to review it, and you only commented after it was on the ML for over a > week and commited, despite clearly knowing that it existed. >
I do not feel. I know that patch is incorrect. And already objected on IRC. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
