On Thu, 14 May 2020, Paul B Mahol wrote:
On 5/14/20, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2020, Marton Balint wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2020, Nicolas George wrote:
Marton Balint (12020-05-14):
I am not a huge fan of this patch, mafd refers to a score between this
frame
and the previous frame, we cannot ensure that there were no additional
frame
processing between scdet and this filter which may have duplicated or
removed frames. So I'd rather not add this feature.
It can only happen if the user has put filters in the middle. I move we
trust users who insert such obscure filters to do what they want to, or
to fix their issues if they have some.
Fine, I am not blocking this if null pointer deref issues are fixed.
I think we can also assume that if the metadata exists, it will contain a
valid number, so I suggest this code:
e_mafd = av_dict_get(next->metadata, "lavfi.scd.mafd", NULL,
AV_DICT_MATCH_CASE);
if (e_mafd) {
mafd = strtod(e_mafd->value, NULL);
} else {
s->sad(crnt->data[0], crnt->linesize[0], next->data[0],
next->linesize[0], crnt->width, crnt->height, &sad);
emms_c();
mafd = (double)sad * 100.0 / (crnt->width * crnt->height) / (1
<< s->bitdepth);
}
Why this patch was committed without a recent review???
Looks like repeating occurrence? Remove commit rights?
I have to agree. Limin's patches can be useful, but they always benefit
from an extra set of eyes.
Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
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".
